Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Inder Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6145 of 2024]
Decided on : 21-03-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Extension of prescribed period of limitation – State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation – All parties are required to act with due diligence and promptitude – Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation – Appellant had filed execution case for taking over possession of land, which would demonstrate clearly admitted position that he was not in possession thereof – Matter would require adjudication on its own merits – Second Appeal deserves to be heard, contested and decided on merits, subject to costs of Rs.50,000/- be paid by respondent to appellant – Impugned Order upheld with imposition of costs. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.01.2024 passed by Single Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, whereby I.A. under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing Second Appeal, has been allowed with a direction for listing Second Appeal to be heard on admission as well as accompanying stay application.
Findings of Court:
To offset, to some extent, hardship of appellant in pursuing his legal remedies, we deem it appropriate that costs of Rs.50,000/- be paid by the respondent to appellant, subject to which the delay in filing Second Appeal shall be treated as condoned. Such payment to be made within one month from today. Failure to do so shall entail peremptory dismissal of Second Appeal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court emphasized that the State cannot be given undue indulgence regarding limitations; all parties, including the State, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude in legal proceedings (!) .
While delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the Court highlighted that if the merits of a case need to be examined, proceedings should not be dismissed solely on the basis of limitation. The focus should be on the substantive issues rather than procedural delays (!) .
The Court acknowledged that delays, especially in cases involving public land claims by the State, may be excusable if explained properly, particularly when the delays are caused by procedural hurdles or extraordinary circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic (!) .
The Court clarified that the exercise of discretion to condone delay is discretionary and should consider factors like negligence, want of due diligence, and inordinate delay. A liberal approach may be adopted when plausible causes for delay are shown, but this does not mean limitation should be waived outright (!) (!) .
The Court stressed that substantial justice is paramount and that delays should be viewed in the context of the overall circumstances, including the importance of the land in question and the conduct of the parties involved. When the matter involves land claimed by the State and in its possession, the case merits a thorough examination on its merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds (!) .
The Court observed that procedural delays, especially those involving government entities, should be approached with caution, ensuring that due diligence is exercised, and delays are not due to negligence or lack of promptness (!) (!) .
The Court upheld the order to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal on the condition that the respondent pays costs to the appellant. This approach aims to balance procedural fairness with substantive justice, recognizing the importance of the land dispute and the need for a fair hearing (!) .
The Court dismissed the appeal but directed that, upon payment of costs, the Second Appeal should be taken up on priority and disposed of expeditiously. The Court also noted that its observations are limited to the context of the order under consideration and do not influence the merits of the case on appeal (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in I.A. No.2022/2020 in Second Appeal No.1253 of 2020 filed by the respondent, whereby the said I.A. under Section 51[‘5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.’] of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal, has been allowed with a direction for listing the Second Appeal to be heard on admission as well as the accompanying stay application.
FACTS:
3. On 14.12.2012, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.17-A/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit’) before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Class-1, Ashoknagar, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of Land Survey No.8/1 having an area of 1.060 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) situated in Village Mohrirai, Tehsil and District Ashoknagar, contending that an order dated 30.08.1977 was passed in his favour, wherein he was allotted the suit property. Thereafter, by mistake, in place of the appellant’s name i.e., Inder Singh, Ishwar Singh’s name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. Such mistake was rectified on an application filed by the appellant before the Additional Collector, Gwalior by order dated 24.08.1978. Pursuant thereto, the appellant obtained a loan from a bank for digging a well in the suit property. It is further averred in the suit that the respondent had declared the land in question to be ‘Government Land’, without any prior notice to the appellant.
4. The respondent-State countered the pleadings of the appellant before the Trial Court. The State contended that the entire area admeasuring 5.696 hectares of Land Survey No.1 was government land from the very beginning and the aforesaid land has been recorded as graze land, out of which, by order dated 14.09.2006 in Case No.15A6A/05-06 of the Tehsildar Ashoknagar, an area of 2.090 hectares land was reserved for the Youth Welfare Department2[Now known as the Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.] and the remaining area of 3.606 hectares land for the Collectorate. It was denied that the appellant was ever in possession of the land.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.08.2013, following which the appellant filed Civil Appeal No.32A of 2015 before the Second Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), which was allowed by order dated 01.10.2015, overruling the Trial Court’s judgment dated 16.08.2013. The First Appellate Court declared the appellant as the landlord of the suit property.
6. The respondent filed a Review Petition viz. Case No.92 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed on the ground of delay on 30.09.2019, as the delay in filing the Review Petition was not explained with any sufficient cause from the respondent’s side. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent, in August, 2020, filed the Second Appeal bearing No.1253 of 2020 along with I.A. No.2022/2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal, in the High Court. The High Court by Impugned O
(1) Limitation – State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation – All parties are required to act with due diligence and promptitu....
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
Condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.
Court reiterated the need for sufficient cause in condoning delay, emphasizing that inordinate delays without justifiable reasons will not be entertained.
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
The main legal principle established is that delay in filing appeals should be condoned when sufficient cause is shown, especially to advance substantial justice. The discretion to condone delay shou....
A liberal approach is essential in condoning delays, particularly for government bodies, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder substantial justice.
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
