2023 Supreme(Mad) 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition Officer (Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation) - Petitioner
Versus
Thulasi - Respondent
C.M.P.Nos.15194, 15196, 15207, 15209, 15213, 15214, 15281, 15283, 15284, 15286, 15287, 15288, 15289, 15290, 15291, 15293, 15303, 15309 & 15312 of 2022 and A.S.SR.Nos.46606, 46601, 46608, 46595, 46603, 46596, 46599, 46607, 46604, 46611, 46602, 46594, 46600, 46609, 46597, 46593, 46605, 46610 & 46598 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2023

Headnote:

Delay in Filing Appeal Suits - Law of Limitation - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [C.P.C. Section 5, Limitation Act] - The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed to condone the delay in filing the Appeal Suits against the orders passed by the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore. The court held that uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner and that filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the rule, while condonation of delay is an exception. The court emphasized that while condoning the delay, especially enormous delay, the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person seeking condonation of delay must be considered. The court referred to legal principles from various judgments to highlight that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated for condonation of delay must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. The court also emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive law and that the discretion to condone the delay must be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court concluded that the delay in filing the Appeal Suits could not be condoned as the petitioner could not establish any acceptable reason for the delay, and condoning the delay in the absence of sufficient reason would cause prejudice to the other parties.

Fact of the Case:

The Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were filed to condone the delay in filing the Appeal Suits against the orders passed by the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore. The Awards were passed on 27.02.2018, and the judgment copy applications were made ready on 11.06.2018. The Government Pleader gave an opinion that the cases were not fit for filing appeals, but the learned Additional Advocate General gave an opinion that the cases were fit for filing appeals. The delay in filing appeals was 1414 and 1420 days, respectively.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner and emphasized that filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the rule, while condonation of delay is an exception. The court held that the delay in filing the Appeal Suits could not be condoned as the petitioner could not establish any acceptable reason for the delay, and condoning the delay in the absence of sufficient reason would cause prejudice to the other parties.

Issues: The issues revolved around the condonation of delay in filing the Appeal Suits against the orders passed by the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner and that filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the rule, while condonation of delay is an exception. The court highlighted legal principles from various judgments to emphasize that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated for condonation of delay must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. The court also emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive law and that the discretion to condone the delay must be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and rejected all the Appeal Suits at the SR stage itself, stating that the delay in filing the Appeal Suits could not be condoned as the petitioner could not establish any acceptable reason for the delay, and condoning the delay in the absence of sufficient reason would cause prejudice to the other parties.