Inordinate delay in filing appeal lacks satisfactory explanation, mandating dismissal under principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that delay defeats equity.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958 arises out of the judgment dated 25.01.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.2516 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition holding that the respondents are entitled to the arrears of 1997 pay revision effected in the appellant-Corporation from 01.03.1997 till 31.10.1999 or the respective date of their retirement, whichever is earlier.

2. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 907 days, for condonation of which C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2013 has been filed. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal is that, immediately after obtaining certified copy of the judgment, earnest efforts were made by the appellant-Corporation to pay the amount and for the said purpose, necessary request was forwarded to the Government for sanctioning the required fund, and ultimately the entire pay revision arrears were disbursed to the respondents herein.

The delay occurred solely due to administrative sanctions at various levels and that only after complying with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal would be filed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the appellant is not challenging the entire judgment on merits but has restricted the challenge in respect of payment of interest on the admissible amount. In view of the aforesaid, the delay needs to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be considered on merits, for limited consideration of payment of interest.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation.

5. Even though service has not been completed on respondents, no prejudice will be caused to them by the judgment which we intend to pass.

6. The appellant has filed the present appeal after a huge delay of 907 days, for which no justifiable explanation has been put forth. The writ appeal suffers from inordinate delay and laches. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that we should first deal with the aspect of delay. It is well established principle of law that delay defeats equity. In the present case, there is no challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits except for the interest part. The delay appears to be not properly explained.

7. The learned Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as under :

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service. Sir Barnes had stated:

“Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remed