Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao - Appellant
Versus
Reddy Sridevi & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021
Decided on : 16-12-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Second Appeal – Limitation – Huge delay of 1011 days in preferring Second Appeal – Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribes – Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds – While exercising discretion for condoning delay, court has to exercise discretion judiciously – Expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party – Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity – Delay defeats equity – Courts help those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights – Impugned order passed by High Court condoning delay of 1011 days in preferring Second Appeal quashed and set aside. (Paras 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 by which the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, appellant original plaintiff - respondent before High Court, has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, High Court has erred in condoning huge delay of 1011 days in preferring appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Supreme Court allowed appeal against High Court order condoning 1011 days delay in filing Second Appeal [1000747670001][1000747670008] - Trial Court dismissed suit for injunction on 23.04.2016; First Appellate Court allowed it on 01.02.2017; certified copy ready on 10.03.2017 [1000747670001] - High Court condoned delay reasoning that appeal should be heard on merits, no wilful negligence, and imposing costs of Rs.2,000 (!) (!) (!) - No sufficient explanation in condonation application for delay after 15.03.2017 till filing in 2021; only health issues claimed from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 (!) - Law of limitation must be applied with rigour; courts cannot extend period on equitable grounds (!) (!) - Discretion to condone delay under Section 5 must be exercised judiciously; "sufficient cause" not liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of bona fides (!) (!) - Delay defeats equity; courts help the vigilant, not those who slumber over rights (!) (!) - High Court failed to exercise discretion judiciously; reasoning not germane; impugned order quashed [1000747670007] - Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 dismissed on ground of delay; no order as to costs [1000747670008]
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 by which the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, the appellant original plaintiff - respondent before the High Court, has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein - original plaintiff filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 40 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein - original defendants. That the Trial Court dismissed the said suit by judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016. That the First Appellate Court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017. That the original defendants - respondents herein applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on 10.03.2017. That after a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents herein - original defendants preferred the Second Appeal before the High Court. Application to condone the delay was also filed being I.A. No.1 of 2021. By the impugned order, the High Court has condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, which is the subject matter of appeal before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the present case, High Court has committed a grave error in condoning huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal.
3.1 It is submitted that as such no sufficient cause was shown by the respondents herein appellants before the High Court, explaining the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal.
3.2 It is further submitted that even while condoning the huge delay of 1011 days, the High Court has also not observed that sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal.
3.3 It is further submitted that even considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation whatsoever explaining the delay for the period after 15.03.2017 till June, 2021 till the Second Appeal was preferred.
3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762; P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 as well as the decision in the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and No.2 - appellants before the High Court, has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court allowing the application for condonation of delay and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
4.1 It is submitted that when the High Court has exercised discretion and has condoned the delay, the same may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that as rightly observed by the High Court if the delay is condoned in that case the appeal will be considered and decided on merits and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. It is submitted that in order to enable the respondents - appellants before the High Court, to submit the case on merits instead of non-suiting them on the technical ground of delay, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
6. At the outset, it is noted that by the impugned order the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in p
The court emphasized that a request for condoning a delay must be supported by credible evidence, reiterating strict adherence to limitation laws and principles of public policy that discourage undue....
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
