IMPORTANT POINT
The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay.

Headnote:Limitation Act- Section 5-Application for condonation of more than four years’ delay in filing of appeal by respondents against judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001-Allowed by High Court-Appeal-Plea of appellants that appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 was filed on 24.11.2008 i.e., after more than four years, but by scoring out the figures and words “4 years and 28” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of application and substituting the same with figure “1067”, respondents misled the High Court in believing that delay was of 1067 days- A reading of impugned order showed that High Court did make a bald reference to application for condonation of delay filed by respondents but allowed the same without adverting to the averments contained therein and the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-Not only this, High Court erroneously assumed that delay was of 1067 days, though, as a matter of fact, appeal was filed after more than four years-Another erroneous assumption made by High Court was that appellant had not filed reply to controvert the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay-It may have been possible for Court to ignore the first error in the impugned order because by deleting the figures and words “4 years and 28” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application and substituting the same with figure 1067, respondents misled the High Court in believing that the delay was of 1067 days only but it was not possible to fathom any reason why Division Bench of High Court omitted to consider detailed reply which had been filed on behalf of appellant to contest the prayer for condonation of delay- Notwithstanding this, case could have been remitted back to High Court for fresh disposal of application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of Limitation Act but, adoption of that course held not proper , as respondents did not approach High Court with clean hands- Even though Law Department of respondent No.1 was very much aware of the proceedings of the first as well as the second suit but none of the officers is shown to have personally contacted either of the advocates for purpose of filing written statement and preparation of the case and none bothered to appear before the trial Court on any of the dates of hearing- High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years’ delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of Limitation Act-Impugned order of High Court set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by respondents dismissed- Appeal allowed (Paras 10 to 14)
        Law of limitation -Scope and ambit of- The law of limitation is founded on public policy- The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay-The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature- To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury- At the same time, courts are bestowed with the power to condone delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time- The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice- Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, Apex Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate (Para 8)
       (1987) 2 SCC 107, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , (2001) 9 SCC 106,relied
        Condonation of delay- In dealing with applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of State and its agencies/instrumentalities Apex Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay (Para 8)
       (1988) 2 SCC 142, (1996) 3 SCC 132, (1996) 9 SCC 309, (1996) 10 SCC 635, (2005) 3 SCC 752, (2008) 14 SCC 582,relied
       Facts of the Case :
        Issue in consideration in present appeal was whether High Court was justified in condoning more than four years’ delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001.
       Findings of the Court :
        Appellant’s case that appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 was filed on 24.11.2008 i.e., after more than four years, but by scoring out the figures and words “4 years and 28” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of application and substituting the same with figure “1067”, respondents misled the High Court in believing that delay was of 1067 days. A reading of impugned order showed that High Court did make a bald reference to application for condonation of delay filed by respondents but allowed the same without adverting to averments contained therein and the reply filed on behalf of the appellant.Not only this, High Court erroneously assumed that delay was of 1067 days, though, as a matter of fact, appeal was filed after more than four years. Another erroneous assumption made by High Court was that appellant had not filed reply to controvert the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay. It may have been possible for Court to ignore the first error in the impugned order because by deleting the figures and words “4 years and 28” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application and substituting the same with figure 1067, respondents misled the High Court in believing that the delay was of 1067 days only but it was not possible to fathom any reason why Division Bench of High Court omitted to consider detailed reply which had been filed on behalf of appellant to contest the prayer for condonation of delay. Notwithstanding this, case could have been remitted back to High Court for fresh disposal of application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of Limitation Act but, adoption of that course was held not proper , as respondents did not approach High Court with clean hands.
       Result : Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in condoning more than four years’ delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001 is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal.

3. The appellant was allotted a piece of land for setting up an industrial unit at Ankleshwar subject to the terms and conditions embodied in agreement of licence dated 2.4.1976 which, among other things, provided for consumption of specified quantity of water by the appellant. The agreement also provided for payment of 70% of the cost of agreed quantity of water irrespective of consumption. In 1982, respondent No.1 demanded non utilization charges amounting to Rs.4068/-, which were deposited by the appellant. After some time, respondent No.1 demanded Rs.2,69,895/- towards water charges. For next 10 years, the parties entered into long correspondence on the issue of levy of water charges, etc. Finally, respondent No.1 issued bill dated 13.1.1996 requiring the appellant to pay Rs.22,96,207/- towards water charges. The appellant challenged the same in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001. The summons issued by the trial Court were duly served upon the respondents but no written statement was filed on their behalf to controvert the averments contained in the plaint and none appeared on the dates of hearing despite the fact that the case was adjourned on more than one occasion. The suit was finally decreed on 30.10.2004 and it was declared that the appellant is not liable to pay Rs.22,96,207/- by way of minimum charges for water for the period between 1978 and 16.4.2001 and, thereafter, till the water was supplied by respondent No.1. After few months, the appellant filed another suit which was registered as Civil Suit No.222 of 2005 and prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to issue no objection certificate in its favour. The summons of the second suit were also served upon the respondents, but neither the written statement was filed nor any one appeared on their behalf. The second suit was also decreed on 12.12.2007 and respondent No.1 was directed to issue no objection certificate to the appellant. In compliance of the decree passed in the second suit, the concerned authority of the Corporation issued no dues certificate dated 9.7.2008.

4. After four months and fifteen days of taking action in furtherance of the decree passed in the second suit, the respondents filed an appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001. They also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay by making the following assertions:

“1. That this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (SD), Gandhinagar passed on 30.10.2004. That the suit was filed for permanent injunction and declaration and on the ground that the advocate of the GIDC has appeared but no written statement was filed and, therefore, the learned Judge resorted to Order 8 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and granted the declaration as prayed for in the plaint. That after the decree being passed, the present plaintiff filed another suit being Civil Suit No.222 of 2005 and in which the decree was passed on 12.12.2007. That particular decree is to be challenged before this Honourable Court and, therefore, in 2008, after the second decree was passed, it was brought to the notice of the Legal Department as well as to the Executive Engineer at GIDC, Ankleshwar as to how this has happened and it seems that because of numerous transfers as well as it is also possible that the party might have arranged or joined hands with some employee of the Corporation and thereby after engaging advocate, no bod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 196

IMPORTANT POINT The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay.