Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Obilet Tariang – Appellants
Vs.
Pravirkr Roy – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 33 (SH) and 242 of 2004
Decided On: 11.03.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H. Roy, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: N. Dutta, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in preferring an appeal cannot be condoned on equitable grounds, and the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute prescribes it.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khashi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 - Rule 36(A) - Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition against an order condoning the delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree of a Title Suit. The respondent had missed several court dates and subsequently filed an application for condonation of delay, which was granted by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's explanation for the delay was contradictory and not acceptable. The court held that the delay could not be condoned on equitable grounds and that the respondent had shown negligence and laches in the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in preferring the appeal could be condoned, and if the respondent's explanation for the delay was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay could not be condoned on equitable grounds and that the respondent had shown negligence and laches in the case. The court also emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute prescribes it.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal, allowing the revision application and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This petition under Rule 36(A) of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khashi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 (hereafter referred to as "the Rules") read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order condoning the delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in a Title Suit.
2. The Petitioner herein instituted Title Suit (Ejection) No. 45(T)/2002 against the opposite party in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, for declaration that the latter is a defaulter in payment of rent, for evicting him from the suit property belonging to the Petitioner, for realization of arrear rent amounting to Rs.3,30,000/- for attachment and sale of the articles of the Defendant/O.P. and for cost of the suit.
3. On receipt of notice from the Court, the Defendant/O.P. entered appearance in the case. According to the Petitioner, in spite of granting repeated adjournments on 06.05.03, 02.06.03, 01.07.03, 01.08.03, 01.09.03 and 30.10.03 which was the last date given to the Defendant/O.P., no written statement was filed and thus, finally on 04.11.03, the adjournment sought for by the Defendant/O.P. was rejected. The suit was posted for ex-parte hearing on 08.12.03. On 08.12.03 despite the order for ex-parte hearing, an application was filed on behalf of the O.P. once again seeking adjournment of the case which was refused by the trial Court. Thereafter by judgment and decree dated 11.12.03 the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff/Petitioner by the trial Court.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.12.03 passed by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No. 2(T)/04. In the execution proceeding the Defendant/O.P. entered appearance and filed an application on 28.05.04 under Order 21, Rule 58 and 59 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for stay of sale of the articles belonging to him and the matter was then fixed on 27.07.04 for hearing. Meanwhile, the opposite party preferred an appeal being RFA No. 1(T)/2004 in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.12.03 passed by the Trial Court in T.S. (Ejectment) 45 (T)/02. Since there was a delay of 150 days preferring the appeal, the opposite party also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal which was registered and numbered as Misc. Application No. 24/04.
5. By the impugned order dated 27.08.04, the appellate Court condoned the delay. It is this order which is under challenge in this proceeding initiated by the Plaintiff/Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the appellate Court did not take into consideration, the callous and negligent attitude of the opposite party throughout the proceeding and even in making the application for condonation of delay and thus, could not have condoned the delay holding that there was no negligence or laches on the part of the opposite party. According to the Petitioner such negligence and laches are so glaring on the face of the records that the appellate Court, not to speak of holding that there was no negligence and laches on the part of the opposite party, could not have condoned the delay there being no explanation for condonation of delay.
6. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court as reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 (P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Ors.) and (1996) 6 SCC 267 (State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya), Mr. H. Roy, learned Sr. counsel in support of his arguments advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff/Petitioner submitted that the negligence and laches on the part of the opposite party is so glaring on the face of it that the appellate Court could not have condoned the delay holding that there was no negligence and/or laches on the part of the opposite part
