Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Verma and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
S. GANESHARAJU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. - Appellants;
Versus
NARASAMMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. - Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3306 of 2012,
Decided on : March 27, 2012
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – High Court not condoning delay though warranted – Further, dismissing review petition touching on merits without any arguments by the counsel – Party put to dual hardship – Improper. (Para 10, 11)
2007(5) SCALE 30 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Sufficient cause – Should be construed liberally – Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties – Meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly – There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate (Para 14, 16, 17)
(d) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Sufficient cause not defined – Left to discretion of court – Reasonable diligence or negligence and callousness are relevant factors. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were defendants in a partition suit filed by S. Chandra Raju and others which was dismissed. RFA thereagainst was disposed of by High Court leaving it open to the parties to approach the Bangalore Development Authority to work out their remedies, if they are so entitled to. Review petition was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants have shown sufficient cause for condoning delay.
ORDER
1. Delay in filing and refiling special leave petitions is condoned.
SLP(C) No. 26538 of 2009:
Leave granted.
2. The Appellants were Defendants along with other Respondents before XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 3684 of 1992 decided on 13.7.2005. The said suit was filed by S. Chandra Raju and Ors. claiming partition with regard to suit property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Against it, Plaintiffs preferred R.F.A. No. 1476 of 2005 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 15.7.2008. The relevant operative part of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
10. Liberty is reserved to the Plaintiffs representing the branch of S. Munuswamyraju to approach the Bangalore Development Authority for reconveyance of site No. 777 and Defendants 1(a) to (g) in respect of site No. 777A. As per the request of S. Narasaraju the then CITB re-conveyed the site No. 290A in favour of his daughter the 4th Defendant herein. The Plaintiffs and other Defendants cannot have any right in respect of site No. 290A re-conveyed to 4th Defendant. So also, the Defendants cannot have any objections for the Plaintiffs to claim site No. 777 with the Bangalore Development Authority if they are so entitled according to law. Similarly, the Plaintiffs and other Defendants cannot have any objection for Defendants 1(a) to (g) to claim site No. 777A with the BDA if they are so entitled and in accordance with law. With the above observation, the appeal is hereby dismissed confirming the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Parties to bear their own cost.
3. Learned Single Judge also made a reference with regard to the Agreement said to have been entered into between CITB and S. Narasaraju with regard to agreeing to reconvey three sites bearing No. 290A, 777 and 777A.
4. The basic and foremost submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellants before us was that the present Appellants were not parties to the said Agreement and in any case, the said Agreement was not biding on them. Since the appeal of the Plaintiffs came to be disposed of with certain observations, as mentioned hereinabove, parties were left open to approach the Bangalore Development Authority to work out their remedies, if they are so entitled to.
5. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the Appellants, who were arrayed as Defendants in the Suit, filed Review Petition No. 369 of 2008. Said Review was barred by 53 days. For condonation of delay, they have filed I.A. No. 1 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying therein that delay may be condoned and Review Petition be heard on merits.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the Respondents herein had opposed the said prayer of the Appellants seeking condonation of delay as they had not filed any counter affidavit to the affidavit filed by the Appellants in support of their interlocutory application.
7. However, still learned Single Judge not only proceeded to dismiss Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2008 filed by the Appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but also casually touched the merits of the matter and said that no case has been made out to entertain the Review Petition.
8. It is against this order, the Appellants are before us.
9. We have accordingly heard Mr. H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 15 and Dr. G.C. Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for other Respondents.
10. We have also critically gone through the averments of I.A. No. 1 of 2008 to find out ourselves if Appellants have been able to explain delay of 53 days satisfactorily or not and if sufficient cause has been shown by them. After having gone through the same, we are more than satisfied that delay has been explained properly and to our satisfaction. It reflects that sufficient cause was shown and proved before le
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
