2012 (9) TMI 810 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Held that - The High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the Defendant and further directing the Defendant to deposit certain amounts - while disposing of the appeal the Plaintiff to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the Defendant before this Court. However, he is restrained from withdrawing any amount deposited by the Defendant before the Trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. High Court's decision to allow the Civil Revision Petition and direct the Defendant to deposit a certain amount.
3. Plaintiff's appeal against the High Court's order.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court against the Trial Court's judgment, but there was a delay of 992 days in filing the appeal. The Defendant also submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which was rejected by the First Appellate Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This rejection prompted the Defendant to file a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court, challenging the order.

Issue 2: The High Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the lower Appellate Court. The High Court directed the Defendant to deposit half of the decretal amount within six weeks and allowed the Plaintiff to withdraw half of the deposited amount. The Defendant complied with the High Court's directions and deposited the specified amounts.

Issue 3: The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the Defendant was directed to deposit a certain sum, which was done. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's orders and found them justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and directing the Defendant to make the deposits. Consequently, the Plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Supreme Court but was restrained from withdrawing any sum deposited before the Trial Court. The Supreme Court ordered the First Appellate Court to proceed with deciding the appeal on merits, following the directions given by the High Court in the Civil Revision Petition.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, allowing the Plaintiff to withdraw a specific amount deposited by the Defendant before the Supreme Court and directing the First Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal on merits as per the High Court's instructions.