Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Pati Rakhan & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Chandrani Devi - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No. - 144 of 2017
Decided On : 03-02-2021
Limitation Act – Article 123, Section 17 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 13 – Sale Deed – Condonation of delay – Instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, by means of which the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal has been rejected and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur in R.S.;Smt.Chandrani Devi Versus Raj Rani and others. – Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court ignoring the provisions made in Section 17 and Article 123 of the Limitation Act can be allowed to sustain – Whether in absence of specific and clear denial on the part of respondent against the categorical pleading that the appellants for the first time came to know about the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1987 on 26.12.2013 the learned first appellate court has not committed grave error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and closing the door of appellant for all times to come – Whether the learned First Appellate Court has not committed serious illegality while passing the impugned order ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that a judgment and decree obtained by fraud is nullify and its invalidity can be set up at any stage even in collateral proceedings and before any Court whether inferior or superior .
Finding of the court: Held, Law of limitation is a law of repose based on rules of estoppel. It serves an important purpose of bringing finality to state of affairs which have prevailed in the knowledge of parties for sufficiently long period of time. – This court refused to grant probate and dismissed the case as the laches were not adequately explained on record. – However, it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of present case. – Court is of the considered opinion that the First Appellate court has failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal and the law applicable on it and has rejected the application without recording any finding in regard to the pleas raised by the appellants and the date of knowledge as to when they came to know about the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal. – Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. – Substantial questions of law are decided accordingly.
Result: – Appeal Partly Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard, Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Paltoo Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.9, Sitapur in Misc. Civil Case No.08 of 2014; Pati Rakhan Versus Smt. Chandrani by means of which the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal has been rejected and the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1987 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur in R.S.No.40 of 1983;Smt.Chandrani Devi Versus Raj Rani and others.
3. The brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present Second Appeal, as borne out from the pleadings, are that one Brij Mohan had only two daughters, namely, Raj Rani wife of Anirudh Prasad and Ram Lali wife of Swami Dayal @ Dhondhey. Both the daughters had half share each in the property of Brij Mohan after his death. The respondent has claimed half of the property on the basis of sale deed executed on 18.04.1978 by Raj Rani. Rajeshwari @ Raj Rani had filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed vide R.S.No.229 of 1978. The Suit was decreed ex parte on 26.03.1980. The respondent had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected on 02.12.1981.
Thereafter the Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed on 20.01.1983. Consequently the respondent had filed Regular Suit No.40 of 1983 for cancellation of ex-parte decree dated 26.03.1980 and permanent injunction. The injunction was sought for whole of the property of late Brij Mohan on the ground that one of his daughter Raj Rani had executed a sale deed of the half portion and in regard to the remaining half portion the second daughter Ram Lali had executed a Will deed in favour of the respondent. The suit was decreed by means of judgment and decree dated 18.07.1987. The appellants filed a First Appeal on 22.01.2014 alongwith an application for condonation of delay vide Misc. Case No.8 of 2014 as injunction of the whole property was sought and granted on the ground that the injunction of property of Ram Lali has been obtained fraudulently without impleading the appellants and no Will was executed by late Ram Lali. After inviting objections and hearing the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed. Hence the instant Second Appeal has been filed.
4. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(ii) Whether in absence of specific and clear denial on the part of respondent against the categorical pleading that the appellants for the first time came to know about the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1987 on 26.12.2013 the learned first appellate court has not committed grave error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and closing the door of appellant for all times to come?
(iii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has not committed serious illegality while passing the impugned order ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that a judgment and decree obtained by fraud is nullify and its invalidity can be set up at any stage even in collateral proceedings and before any Court whether inferior or superior?
5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the appellants, who are the sons of Ram Lali wife of Swami Dayal @ Dhondhey, were not impleaded in the Regular Suit No.40 of 1983 filed by the respondents despite the fact that injunction in regard to the property of Ram Lali was also sought. Therefore, the appellants could not know about the proceedings and judgment and order passed by the trial court. The appellants came to know about the judgment and d
Point of law: It is well settled principle of law that any judgment or order obtained by fraud, its validity can be challenged in any proceeding. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke pro....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.
The delay in filing an appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction by the appellant. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5....
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
(1) Substitution and abatement of appeal – No specific order for abatement of a proceeding is envisaged – Abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time.(2) Limitation – Rules of limitatio....
Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals; mere allegations of fraud without detailed substantiation are inadequate.
The court emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in presenting an appeal and highlighted the importance of adhering to the substantive law of limitation.
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
