1. Appeal dismissed due to unexplained delay of 253 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Union Of India
Versus
S.S.Gurayya
Case No. : 4696 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/21/00
The court adopted a pragmatic approach to condone a 253-day delay in filing an appeal, ruling that the pendency of a clarification application following a single judge's judgment constituted a sufficient ground for condonation.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Appeal dismissed solely on the ground that delay of 253 days was not explained - Appellants sought clarification on judgment of single judge, and said application remained pending, creating a necessity to approach the Division Bench - Such circumstance treated as sufficient ground for condonation - Court inclined to adopt a pragmatic attitude to condone the delay. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was dismissed on the ground that a delay of 253 days in filing the appeal had not been sufficiently explained. The appellants contended that after the pronouncement of the judgment by a single judge, they had moved an application for clarification which had not been disposed of, leading to the delay in approaching the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
By adopting a pragmatic attitude, the court condoned the delay of 253 days involved in filing the appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay of 253 days in filing the appeal should be condoned in light of the pending clarification petition.
Ratio Decidendi: A pragmatic approach may be adopted to condone delay in filing an appeal when the party provides a reasonable explanation, such as the pendency of an application for clarification of the lower court's judgment.
Result: Appeal allowed and petition to condone delay allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended delay caused by pending clarification application before single judge. (Para 3 )
3. Adopting pragmatic attitude, court inclined to condone delay of 253 days. (Para 4 )
4. Delay in filing appeal may be condoned when circumstance of pending clarification petition explains delay. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; petition to condone delay allowed; LPA regularised for disposal by Division Bench. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned when a clarification petition is pending?
Yes, the court may adopt a pragmatic attitude and condone the delay if the pendency of the clarification petition explains the delay. (Para 3 , 4 )
K.T.THOMAS, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed only on the ground that the delay of 253 days has not been explained, As the application for condonation of delay was dismissed the appeal also was dismissed.
(3) IN fact the appellants have stated in the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act that after the pronouncement of the judgment by single Judge on 27-5- 98 the appellants have moved an application for clarification and that application was not disposed of till 8-7-98 when appellants found it imperatively necessary to approach the Division Bench. We are told that clarification petition has not been disposed of even now. The aforesaid circumstance was highlighted as the ground for the delay of 253 days.
(4) BY adopting a pragmatic attitude we are inclined to condone the delay of 253 days involved in filing the said LPA. Accordingly we allow this appeal and the petition to condone the delay would stand allowed. Resultantly the LPA is regularised and is now to be disposed of by the Division Bench in accordance, with law.
(5) THE Appeal is disposed of.
