Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 567
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (AIZAWL BENCH)
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
H. Lallawmzuala H/o Lalramhmuaki - Appellant
Versus
Zoramthangi - Respondent
Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 146 of 2019; Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 2019
Decided On : 28-08-2020
Emily L Chhangte, Advocate, Mary Lalawmpuii, Advocate, Juliana Lalhmangaihi, Advocate, H. Zodinsanga, Advocate, B. Lalramenga, Advocate, Roshan Subedi, Advocate, Lalhmingthangi Fanai, Advocate, C. Lalhriatpuii, Advocate, Vanlalhruaia Vanchhawng, Advocate, H. Kristazi, Advocate, Lalrinchhana, Advocate
Incorrect statements in the application seeking condonation of delay can be sufficient ground to reject the application.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - [Civil Suit, Land Dispute] - [Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5] - The court discussed the grounds for delay in filing an appeal against a judgment declaring the respondent as the rightful owner of a disputed land. The applicants claimed to be rustic villagers with no knowledge of legal technicalities and financial difficulties. The court analyzed the reasons for delay, including obtaining certified copies of the judgment, and the time taken by the applicants' counsel in filing the appeal. The court referred to the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr. and O.P Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh & Ors. to establish that incorrect statements in the application seeking condonation of delay can be sufficient ground to reject the application. The court found that the applicants' grounds for delay were not acceptable and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought condonation of 457 days delay in filing an appeal against a judgment declaring the respondent as the rightful owner of a disputed land. They claimed to be rustic villagers with no knowledge of legal technicalities and financial difficulties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants' grounds for delay were not acceptable and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the grounds presented by the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to legal precedents to establish that incorrect statements in the application seeking condonation of delay can be sufficient ground to reject the application. The court found that the applicants' grounds for delay were not acceptable and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mrs. Emily L. Chhangte, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 457 days delay in preferring an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 07.02.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip in Civil Suit Case No. 1/2016 wherein it was declared and decreed that the respondent is the rightful owner of the disputed land and also directed the applicants to vacate the same within 2 (two) months from the date of the judgment & order.
3. The applicants'' case in brief is that the applicants were living in a vacant land in Kanan Veng, Thenzawl since 2001. The applicants had been allowed to live on the land by the Village Council concerned, though the land had not been allotted to them by the Village Council. The respondent, on coming to know that some persons had illegally occupied her land in the year 2009, made a complaint to the authorities and Eviction Notice/Stay Order dated 25.08.2009 was served upon the respondent by the Government. The respondent thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 1/2016 against the applicants for a declaration that the land occupied by the applicants, which was covered by Agriculture LSC No. W-11/1994 belonged to the respondent and that the applicants should be evicted from the said land.
4. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip disposed of Civil Suit No. 1/2016 vide Judgment & Order dated 07.02.2018, declaring that the respondent was the rightful owner of the suit land covered by Agricultural LSC No. W-11/1994 and that the applicants were to vacate the land within 2 (two) months from the date of judgment & order.
5. The applicants'' counsel submits that after the impugned judgment & order was passed by the Trial Court on 07.02.2018, the applicants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the impugned judgment & order, which was registered as CMA No. 3/2018. CMA No. 3/2018 was dismissed vide Order dated 07.06.2018. Consequent to the same, the applicants were at a loss as to how to proceed further. The applicants thereafter approached their present Counsel in the month of February, 2019 stating that they wanted to file an appeal. As the applicants were rustic villagers, having no knowledge about the technicalities of law and having financial difficulties, they could not approach a Counsel earlier than February, 2019.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that a certified true copy of the impugned judgment & order was issued to the applicants on 14.06.2019, wherein it was found that as the judgment was not printed on folio paper, the same was not accepted by the Registry of this Court. The applicants thereafter had to obtain a fresh certified copy of the impugned judgment & order, which was issued only on 21.06.2019. As the same was again not printed on proper folio paper, the applicants had to obtain another certified true copy of the impugned judgment & order.
7. The applicants'' counsel also submits that another ground for the delay in filing the appeal was the time taken for drafting the appeal and the fact that the applicants'' counsel had gotten married on 14.11.2019.
8. Besides the above, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Trial Court did not give any opportunity to the applicants to state their case in the Trial Court. Further, the notice issued in the "Aizawl Post" newspaper by the Trial Court, did not have any circulation in Thenzawl Town, due to which the applicants did not receive any notice. The learned counsel also submits that the statements and documents of the respondent, on the basis of which he has claimed ownership of the land, cannot be said to be proved in the Trial Court as there was no corroborative evidence. The applicants'' counsel submits that unless the delay is condoned, there is likely to be grave miscarriage
