Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Special Deputy Collector (LA) – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018
Decided On : 08-04-2024
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Limitation – Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Generally, courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing phrase ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 5 of Limitation Act in order to condone delay to enable courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice – Courts have always treated statutes of limitation and prescription as statutes of peace and repose – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed – Courts are conferred with discretionary powers to admit appeal even after expiry of prescribed period provided proposed appellant is able to establish ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing it within time. (Paras 7, 8, 12, 16 and 26)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Bar of limitation – Condonation of delay – Imposition of conditions is not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning delay – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on facts of their own case – Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of legislative intent or express provision of statute – Condoning of delay merely for reason that claimants have been deprived of interest for delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning delay is not a correct approach. (Paras 30)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 18 and 54 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Acquisition of land – Dismissal of reference as barred by limitation, – Claimants were negligent in pursuing reference and then in filing proposed appeal – Most of claimants have accepted decision of Reference Court – In the event petitioners have not been substituted and made party to reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did – There is no due diligence on their part in pursuing matter – High Court is justified in refusing to condone delay in filing appeal – It is not proper nor necessary to interfere with decision of High Court refusing to condone inordinate delay in filing proposed appeal – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 32, 33 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Moot question before Court is whether in facts and circumstances of case, High Court was justified in refusing to condone delay in filing proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
In absence of facts for getting the delay condoned in referred cases, vis-à-vis, facts of this case, it cannot be said that the facts or the reasons of getting the delay condoned are identical or similar.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to end litigation; appeals filed beyond prescribed periods are generally barred (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 3(1) mandates dismissal of suits, appeals or applications filed after the prescribed period, with exceptions only under Sections 4-24, notably Section 5 for condonation upon "sufficient cause" (!) (!) (!) . - Condonation is discretionary, may be refused based on factors like inordinate delay, negligence, lack of due diligence, and cannot be guaranteed by parity with other cases (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" must be balanced against the rigid, mandatory nature of Section 3 and the statutory framework; mere reliance on relief in other matters is not sufficient (!) (!) (!) . - In the present case, High Court's refusal to condone 5659 days delay was upheld; SLP dismissed, emphasizing lack of due diligence and deviation from precedent that favors strict adherence to limitation statutes (!) (!) (!) . - Prior cases cited (Dhiraj Singh, Imrat Lal, Basawaraj, etc.) illustrate conflicting approaches, but the Court reiterates that condonation cannot be granted solely on analogies or leniency in other petitions; must satisfy "sufficient cause" with adherence to statutory aims (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Mithal, J.) :
1. Some land in village Gandluru, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh was acquired some time in 1989 for Telugu Ganga Project. Not satisfied by the compensation offered under the award, the claimants (16 in number) preferred a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’) i.e., L.A.O.P. No. 38 of 1990 titled Juvvala Gunta China Chinnaiah (dead) and Ors. vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga Project, Podalakur at Nellore. Out of the 16 claimants in the above reference, claimants No. 1, 3 and 11 died during the pendency of the reference before the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. No steps were taken to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of the above deceased persons. The said reference was dismissed on merits along with some other references vide common judgment and order dated 24.09.1999 upholding the award of the collector.
2. After the lapse of more than 5/6 years, an appeal was proposed to be filed in the High Court Under Section 54 of the Act challenging the dismissal of the reference. The said appeal was proposed to be filed only by some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant No. 11 in the reference i.e., Pathapati Subba Reddy. No other claimant or their legal heirs from amongst the other 15 who were parties in the reference joined the heirs and legal representatives of claimant No. 11 in filing the appeal. They did not even prefer any separate or independent appeal of their own. In other words, out of the 16 claimants, 15 of them impliedly accepted the judgment and order of the reference court and it is only the heirs and legal representatives of claimant No. 11, who feel aggrieved and have proposed to file the appeal.
3. The above appeal, as stated earlier, was preferred with the delay of 5659 days. Accordingly, an application supported by an affidavit of the surviving daughter of the deceased claimant No. 11 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the proposed appeal. It was averred in the said application that the proposed appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claimant No. 11 i.e. Pathapati Subba Reddy, who died on 15.05.1995 during the pendency of the reference but they were not brought on record before the decision of the reference. The said deceased claimant No.11 was survived by his two daughters. The elder one died and that the proposed appellants are the surviving second daughter and her descendants. Since she was living in her matrimonial house, she had no knowledge of the above reference. It was only on 28.05.2015 when one of the grandsons of the said daughter of the deceased claimant visited the office of the L.A.O. for the purpose of obtaining submersion certificate to secure a job that he came to know that there was a reference which was dismissed on 24.09.1999, whereupon the proposed appeal was immediately filed along with an application to condone the delay in its filing.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that in L.A.O.P. No. 38 of 1990 there were 16 claimants in all. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference, claimants No. 1, 3 and 11 were dead but the heirs and legal representatives of none of them were brought on record. None of the other claimants or their heirs and legal representatives made any effort to challenge the order of the dismissal of the reference except the proposed appellants which indicates that the others have accepted the same. It is only one of the surviving daughters of the deceased claimant No. 11 and her descendants who have sought to prefer the proposed appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.09.1999 with an inordinate delay of 5659 days. The High Court not being satisfied by the explanation furnished in preferring the proposed appeal beyond limitation, refused to condone the delay in filing the proposed appeal and consequently dismissed it as barred by time by the order impugned dated 18.01.2017.
5. T
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condo....
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
