Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Reliance Home Finance Limited., Chennai - Appellant
Versus
S.K.A. Abdul Kader & Others - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 10558 of 2021 In O.S.A.SR. No. 94861 of 2020
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Delay Condonation - Violation of Court Order - Limitation Act - Section 17, Article 123 - 2015 (1) SCC 680
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Reliance Home Finance Limited, filed an appeal challenging an order passed in O.A.No.308 of 2008 after a delay of 4329 days. The appeal related to a suit for specific performance and other reliefs, where the appellant had advanced a loan to the purchaser of the suit property despite an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had violated the order of interim injunction and had knowledge of the suit and the injunction but failed to file the appeal or seek impleadment in a timely manner. The court also noted that the appellant failed to provide acceptable reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeal, violation of the court order, and the appellant's knowledge of the injunction and the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle established in the judgment reported in 2015 (1) SCC 680, which held that unless the party seeking condonation of delay provides sufficient cause for the delay, the delay should not be condoned. The court found that the appellant did not provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and had violated the court order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay and rejected the Original Side Appeal, citing the appellant's failure to provide acceptable reasons for the delay and the violation of the court order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 17 and Article 123 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4329 days in filing the Original Side Appeal against the order dated 18.03.2008 made in O.A.No.308 of 2008 in C.S. No.280 of 2008.
Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order 36 Rule 9 of Original Side Rules to set aside the order passed in O.A.No.308 of 2008, dated 18.03.2008.)
M. DURAISWAMY,
1. There is a delay of 4329 days in filing the Original Side Appeal challenging the order passed in O.A.No.308 of 2008, dated 18.03.2008.
2. 1 The plaintiffs filed the suit in C.S.No..280 of 2008 for specific performance and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs took out an application in O.A.No.308 of 2008 seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering or altering or in any way dealing with the suit property.
3. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.03.2008, directed the defendants not to create any fresh alienation. In spite of the said order of interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant, viz., Reliance Home Finance Limited, advanced loan to the purchaser of the suit property from the defendants.
4. According to the parties, the defendants sold the suit property to the purchaser on 12.04.2017. However, the appellant-Finance Company advanced loan to the purchaser even prior to the execution of the sale i.e. on 12.04.2017 itself.
5. On a perusal of the sale deed executed by the defendants viz., G.Vijayalakshmi and others in favour of one A.Santhosh, it is clear that the appellant-Finance Company had drawn the cheques even prior to the execution of the sale deed i.e. (i) Nine cheques dated 31.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,28,23,855/- and (ii) Nine cheques dated 10.04.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,28,23,855/- favouring 1st and 2nd vendors respectively. When the borrower had purchased the property only on 12.04.2017, the appellant-Finance Company choose to issue the cheques in favour of the vendors much prior to the execution of the sale deed. In other words, when the borrower got title to the property only on 12.04.2017, the reason for issuing the cheques even prior to 12.04.2017 has not been explained by the appellant-Finance Company. That apart, when this court had granted an order of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property, the appellant-Finance Company advanced huge amount to the purchasers.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the appellant-Finance Company had knowledge about the pendency of the suit as early as on 25.05.2017, the date on which a notice was sent to the appellant-Finance Company informing them that legal action would be initiated against them for violating the order of interim injunction granted by this court in O.A.No.308 of 2008, dated 18.03.2008.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Finance Company submitted that no notice was sent to the appellant-Finance Company and that it was only sent to its sister-concern.
8. On a perusal of the notice dated 25.05.2017 and also the acknowledgement annexed in the typed set of papers, it is clear that the notice dated 25.05.2017 was very much addressed to the appellant and the acknowledgement was also received by the respondents' counsel.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the acknowledgement, the seal of Reliance Commercial Finance Limited has been affixed hence, it should not be taken as proper service of notice.
10. When the notice was addressed to the appellant's company the affixure of seal shall not vitiate the proper service of notice on them. Therefore, from the production of notice dated 25.05.2017 and the acknowledgement in respect of the service of the said notice, the respondents established that the appellant had full knowledge about the o
AI
Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause to be provided, and violation of a court order may impact the court's decision on delay condonation.
The court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal is not a matter of right and must be exercised judiciously, considering the merits of the case only when sufficient cause....
Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. E....
The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice, asserting that a party must be afforded a hearing before any decisions that impact their rights are made, especially in the context of ex-parte....
The right to appeal is substantive; however, significant delay must be justified with bona fide reasons, which were not established in this case.
Circumstances, they cannot deny about the knowledge of the decree at a belated stage. The delay was not properly explained.
Point of law: The litigant does not stand to benefit by approaching the Court of law with an appropriate application at a belated stage. The legislature has in this, as in every civilized country tha....
The court requires sufficient cause to condone delay under the Limitation Act, with a focus on diligence and valid reasons.
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
