Compliance with prescribed periods for filing appeals, establishment of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, and the application of specific provisions over general provisions.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

The above land acquisition appeal under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the State on 20.8.1992 against the judgment and decree in L. A.R.No. 61 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.11.1991 impleading the claimant Madhava Kurup Ramachandran Pillai as His sole respondent. Later the appellant petitioner came to know that the claimant died on 20.11.1991. Therefore, it filed C.M.P.No.1403 of 1993 under 0.1 R.10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to add respondents 2 to 6 who are the legal heirs of the deceased respondent as additional respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal.

2. The case of the petitioner as revealed from the affidavit dated 19.5.1993 tiled by an Upper Division Clerk in support of the above petition is that the petitioner came to know of the death of the respondent only when notice issued to him by this court was returned stating that he was no more. The said petition was not accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. However, this court ordered notice in that petition on 7.10.1993. Counsel for additional respondents 2 to 6 appeared and filed counter-affidavit and opposed it on the ground that there was no petition to condone the delay in filing the petition for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. However, when the C.M.P. came up for hearing subsequently it was submitted that a fresh petition to condone the delay would be filed. Accordingly a fresh petition, C.M. P. No. 1032/99 was filed, however, there was no affidavit slating the reasons for the delay. In that petition His extent of delay was shown as 272 days. The said petition was filed on 18.2.1999. C.M.P. No. 1403/93 along with C.M.P. No. 1032/97 came up for hearing together on 19.2.1999. On that day it was represented on behalf of the State that the appellant would prefer to file a fresh affidavit and therefore, adjournment was sought and accordingly it was posted to 22.2.1999. On that day a fresh petition, C.M.P. No. 1089 of 1999 for condonation of del ay along with an affidavit by the District.Collector, Thiruvananthapuram was filed. In that petition also the extent of delay was shown as 272 days. Thereafter on behalf of respondents 2 to 6 a counter affidavit was filed on 22.2.1999 opposing the said petition. Finally all the petitions came up for hearing on 24.2.1999 and counsel for the appellant and the respondents were again beard on that day.

3. Let us examine the extent of delay in filing the petition for implement of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. According to the petitioner, as pointed out above, the extent of delay is only 272 days. In this context, it is necessary to find out as to how this calculation has been made. It is evident from the endorsements made on the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 61 of 1987 that the appeal L. A. A. No. 1063 of 1992 had been filed on the last day of the period prescribed for filing His appeal, ie., on 20.8.1992. C.M.P. No. 1403/93 for impleading the legal heirs was filed only on 22.5.1993. There is a delay of 272 days in filing this petition. But it was not accompanied by the petition for condonation of delay. However, there are two petitions for condonation of delay, C.M.P. No. 1032/99 and C.M.P. No. 1089/99. The first petition was filed on 18.2.1999 without any supporting affidavit and the second petition was filed on 22.2.1999 with an affidavit. If the time is calculated on the basis of C.M.P. No. 1089/ 99, there will be a delay of about seven years in filing the C.M.P. No. 1403/93 for impleadment.

4. Art.120 of the Limitation Act is very relevant in the present context and hence it is reproduced hereunder. "120. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, The date of death of the to have the legal representative of a deceased Ninety days piamn" appellant, defend- plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent as the or respondent, made a party (1908- Arts.176, 177) case may be"

It