1987 (2) TMI 61 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether or not to apply the same standard in applying the sufficient cause test to all the litigants regardless of their personality in the said context is another? Held that - There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression sufficient cause . So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.
- Application of the "sufficient cause" test to all litigants, including the State.
- Principles of valuation in the context of enhancing compensation for land acquisition for public purposes.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by THAKKAR J. pertains to an appeal by the State of Jammu & Kashmir challenging a decision that enhanced compensation for land acquisition for public purposes. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 4 days beyond the prescribed period, prompting the State to seek condonation of the delay. The court emphasized the importance of the "sufficient cause" test in enabling courts to do substantial justice and highlighted the need for a liberal approach in applying this test. The judgment underscored that the judiciary should prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations, especially when a meritorious matter may be dismissed due to delay.

The court elucidated that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied in a rational and pragmatic manner, without a pedantic approach. It emphasized that every day's delay must be explained, but there should be a balance between substantial justice and technicalities. The judgment emphasized that there is no presumption of deliberate delay or mala fides on the part of litigants seeking condonation. The court emphasized that the judiciary's role is to remove injustice and ensure even-handed justice for all litigants, including the State.

In the specific case at hand, the court found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the identity of the litigant, whether the State or a private party, should not impact the application of the "sufficient cause" test. The court stressed the need for equal treatment before the law and rejected any step-motherly treatment towards the State when seeking condonation of delay. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the expression "sufficient cause" in a manner that upholds the spirit of justice and ensures decisions are made on merits.

Consequently, the court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, condoned the delay, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a decision on merits after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, thereby emphasizing the court's commitment to ensuring justice is served without undue technical hindrances.