2021 (12) TMI 1424 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal - Suit for for permanent injunction against the respondents herein (original defendants) - It is submitted that as such no sufficient cause was shown by the respondents herein appellants before the High Court, explaining the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021 - In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran 1997 (9) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT , while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. Considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, it is opined that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. The impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation in Second Appeal filing

Analysis:
The appellant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later allowed by the First Appellate Court. The original defendants applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order after the First Appellate Court's decision. However, they waited for approximately 1011 days before preferring the Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court, in an impugned order, condoned this significant delay, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant contended that the High Court erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause being shown by the respondents. They argued that the delay was not adequately explained, especially for the period after a certain date. Citing various legal precedents, the appellant sought to set aside the High Court's order based on the lack of a justifiable explanation for the delay.

On the other hand, the respondents supported the High Court's decision, emphasizing that condoning the delay would allow for a fair consideration of the appeal on its merits. They argued that dismissing the appeal solely based on the delay would not serve the interests of justice. They urged the court to uphold the High Court's order and allow the appeal to proceed.

Upon thorough examination, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to condone the delay of 1011 days was not justified. The Court noted that the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in filing the Second Appeal. Referring to legal principles and precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order condoning the delay, and dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents. The Court held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable both in law and on factual grounds.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents, and allowed the present appeal. The Court emphasized the significance of timely legal actions and the need for a justifiable cause to condone delays in legal proceedings.