2014 Supreme(SC) 820
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
The Principal Govt. Pre-University College & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Mr. Jambu Kumar Mutha – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10418 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19634 of 2012)
With
Sri S.Prakash (Dead) and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Sri Jambu Kumar Mutha and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10419 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20841 of 2012)
Decided On : 20-11-2014
IMPORTANT POINT
Even inordinate delay in filing appeal can be condoned in the facts of the case.
Headnote:Administration of Justice – Delay in filing appeal – Appellants filing an appeal before High Court against decree of court below – Appeal pending – State not filing its appeal – Filing application for transposition as appellants – Dismissed by High Court – State then filing proper appeal – Dismissed on ground of delay and dismissal of application for transposition – Not justified – The main appeal against the same decree pending before the same High Court – Delay ought to be condoned and matter decided on merits – Delay condoned and matter remitted back. (Para 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellants had filed an appeal against the decree of the trial court and that appeal is pending before High Court.
At that time State did not file its appeal. Instead it filed application for transposition as appellants, which was dismissed by High Court.
State then filed proper appeal which was dismissed on ground of delay and dismissal of the application for transposition.
Finding of the Court:
Delay ought to be condoned and matter decided on merits.
Result:
Appeal allowed, delay condoned.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 13th February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby Regular First Appeals No.806 of 2000 and 296 of 2011 filed by the appellants have been dismissed.
3. In OS No.125 of 1996 plaintiff-respondent No.1 in these appeals prayed for declaration of his title over the suit property, removal of unauthorised construction raised over the same and permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff’s case in a nutshell was that he is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situate in Malur Town, Kalur District fully described in the plaint out of which the defendants had unauthorisedly occupied an area measuring 377 feet x 34 feet to construct a school building. This unauthorised occupation and construction was, according to the plaintiff, to be removed and possession over the entire suit property protected by issue of a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
4. The defendant’s case, as set out, in the written statement filed on their behalf was that the suit property belonged to the State Government and that the same had been used for construction of a Government school building subsequently upgraded as a pre-university college being run and maintained by the State Government. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as eight issues which were answered by the Court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2000. The end result of the discussion on the issues was a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to the effect that he was the owner of plaint Schedule “B” property unauthorised construction raised over which was liable to be removed. The trial Court further restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule ‘A’ property which was held to be in ownership and possession of the plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellants in SLP (C) No.20841 of 2012 approached the High Court for permission to file an appeal against the said judgment and decree which permission was granted by the High Court by its order dated 30th November, 2000 culminating in the filing of RFA No.806 of 2000. No appeal, it appears, was filed by the State Government or by the Principal of the Government Pre-University College defendants in the suit to challenge the judgment and decree suffered by them. I.A. No.2 of 2008 was, however, moved by them in RFA No.806 of 2000 seeking their transposition as appellants in the said appeal. That prayer was declined by the High Court by an order dated 18th November, 2010 with the observation that the defendants-respondents No.2 and 3 in RFA No.806 of 2000 being parties to the suit were free to challenge the judgment and decree passed against them in separate appeals, if they so advised.
6. It was thereafter that defendants-appellants in SLP (C) No.19634 of 2012 filed RFA No.296 of 2011 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in which they filed an application seeking condonation of intervening delay in the filing of the appeals. That application has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in these appeals.
7. The High Court has not only found the explanation offered by the appellants unacceptable but also considered the appellant’s refusal to accept the offer made by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to be what it has described as “inexplicable and deplorable”. The relevant part of the order of the High Court reads as under:
“Yet another circumstance that is equally inexplicable and deplorable is the fact that there was a voluntary offer from the respondent, who has benefit of a judgment and decree, to hand over the disputed suit property described in Schedule-B to the plaint for the benefit of the State Government, since it is adjoining coll