Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Brijesh Kumar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.6609 – 6613 OF 2014
Decided On : 24-3-2014
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Application for condonation of delay – Maintainability of – The courts should not adopt an injustice – oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay – However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of Act, 1963 – Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay – When mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.(Para 11)
Facts of the Case –
Present Petitions have been filed against judgment passed by High Court dismissing Applications for condonation of delay of more than10 years in filing appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Findings of the Court –
Instantly after considering facts and circumstances and the reasons for inordinate delay of 10 years 2 months and 29 days, High Court not found sufficient grounds to condone delay. In view of the facts of the case ,no fault was found with the impugned judgment. Petitions having no merit were dismissed.
Result – Petitions dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Sufficient cause is a mandatory condition precedent for the exercise of judicial discretion to condone delays in filing appeals or applications (!) .
When the delay exceeds a substantial period, such as over 10 years, courts scrutinize the reasons for the delay carefully and require proper, satisfactory, and convincing explanations. If such explanations are lacking, courts are unlikely to condone the delay (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that delay should not be treated sympathetically if it is due to inaction, negligence, or lack of bona fide intent. The conduct and attitude of the party seeking condonation are relevant factors (!) (!) .
The law of limitation aims to promote finality and prevent indefinite delays, and it is generally enforced strictly, even if hardship or injustice may result in individual cases (!) (!) .
The courts distinguish between mere delay and inordinate delay, with the latter requiring stronger justifications for condonation. An unjustified inordinate delay warrants dismissal of the application for condonation (!) (!) .
The principle that a party approaching the court immediately after the cause of action is different from a party that delays significantly in filing is recognized; the latter may not benefit from the relief of condonation if the delay is unreasonable (!) .
The courts discourage an approach that perceives delay as a minor issue and emphasize the importance of reasonableness and bona fide conduct in such applications (!) (!) .
Ultimately, if the delay is not properly explained and the reasons are not convincing, courts will not exercise their discretion to condone the delay, and the application or appeal will be dismissed (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
ORDER
1. These petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in RFA No.5793 of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. The land of the petitioners alongwith the lands of others admeasuring 134 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas situate in revenue estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar stood notified under Section 4 of the Act on 8.9.1993. In respect of the same, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 8.10.1997 assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners @ Rs.1,75,000/ – per acre.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioners and other persons interested filed references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and the Reference Court made the award on 7.9.2001 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.1,85,000/ – per acre and they were also given other statutory benefits.
4. Aggrieved, some of the persons interested filed appeals before the High Court, however, petitioners had chosen not to file appeal at the initial stage but filed the same in the year 2012 after a lapse of 10 years 2 months and 29 days. The High Court refused to condone the delay in spite of the fact that other persons who had preferred the appeals in time had been given a higher compensation. Hence, these petitions.
5. Shri Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it was a fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned and the High Court has committed an error in not entertaining the appeal on merit.
6. The High Court had given cogent and valid reasons and relied upon large number of judgments of this Court while rejecting the application for condonation of delay including Mewa Ram (Deceased by L.Rs) & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 2624.
7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts.
The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium” (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that “a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for
a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law.”
9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:–
“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”
10. While considering a similar issue, this court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649 laid down various principles inter alia:
“ x x x
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact
vi) The concept of liber
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
