1. Second appeal filed with delay — Application for condonation of delay rejected by High Court on grounds of forgetfulness. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1147
2001(4) Supreme 470.1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
M/s. Esbee Inds. Corpn. -Appellant
versus
M/s. Buck Systems Int. Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4160 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9878/1998)
Decided on 21-7-2000
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that a delay of 161 days in filing a second appeal should be condoned to allow the matter to be heard and decided on its merits, noting that the court could impose costs if deemed necessary.
Subject
Appellate Procedure - CONDONE DELAY
Act Referred
Headnote
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5 -Second appeal before High Court time barred by 161 days-Delay condonation application not accepted by High Court as only ground pleaded was forgetfulness-Appeal-Delay ought to have been condoned by imposing costs-Appeal restored to be heard and disposed of on merits. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay — Acceptability of pleadings based on forgetfulness as a ground for condoning delay in filing second appeal. (Para 3 )
3. Delay of 161 days in filing appeal — Condonation appropriate — Option to impose costs to balance interests. (Para 3 )
4. Condonation of delay in filing appeal — Discretion to condone delay — Power to impose costs as a condition for condonation. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order set aside — Delay condoned — Second appeal restored to High Court for disposal on merits. (Para 4 )
6. Can a delay in filing an appeal be condoned if the ground pleaded is forgetfulness?
Yes, the court held that such a delay ought to be condoned, noting that the court could impose costs if deemed necessary to balance the interests of the parties. (Para 3 )
7. What is the court's approach toward restoring an appeal after condoning a delay?
Once the delay is condoned, the appeal should be restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on its merits. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The notice on the SLP stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order remitting the second appeal to the High Court, after condoning the delay in filing it.
3. The order of the High Court that is under challenge stated that the second appeal before it was out of time by 161 days and that the application for condonation of delay was not acceptable because except for pleading forgetfulness, no other ground was made out. We have heard learned counsel and examined the pleadings. We are of the view that, in any event, the delay of 161 days ought to have been condoned and, if the High Court was of the opinion that costs were required to be imposed, that order could also have been passed. We think that, in these circumstances, the delay should be condoned and the appeal restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. The appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The appeal (O.S.A. No. 14/97) is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits.
5. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
**************
