2023 Supreme(All) 2610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Bharat Lal And 3 Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And 9 Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 3762 OF 2023.
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Pradeep Singh Sengar, Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.S.C, Pramod Kumar Pandey, Raj Kumar Pandey, Ram Kumar Pal.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrued to other parties.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - Limitation Act - Application for condonation of delay - Delay of thirty-six years condoned without sufficient explanation - Court reiterated the need for strict scrutiny in extraordinary delays - The Revisional Authority erroneously did not decide on the merit of the revision petition concerning delay condonation - Court emphasized that the circumstances of substantial justice must not infringe on the rights of other parties. (Paras 10, 18, 21, 24)
(B) Condonation of Delay - Judicial discretion invoked must balance substantial justice with protection of accrued rights - Sufficient cause must be shown; merely invoking liberal construction of justice is not adequate. (Paras 11, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the condonation of a thirty-six-year delay in appealing an order made in 1984, which was based on a compromise. The appellate authority granted condonation without adequate explanation, leading to a challenge by the petitioners.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the condonation of such extraordinary delay warranted strict scrutiny and that the Revisional Authority's failure to decide on the merits of the delay was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the Revisional Authority erred by not addressing the merits of the condonation of delay application despite it being an extraordinary delay, and whether both revision petitions should be adjudicated together.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that extraordinary delays necessitate a strict approach in condonation applications as failure to adequately explain delay undermines the rights of the decree-holder.
Result: Writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Revisional Authority to decide both revision petitions simultaneously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion on the case's factual background and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the condonation of delay and its justification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court observations on the need for a strict approach to delay. (Para 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 4. legal reasoning focused on revisiting the jurisdictional decisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final decision regarding the disposition of the writ petition. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent No.4
2. Facts of the present case in brief are as follows:
(i) The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.8.1984 decided a case arising out of proceedings under Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1953") on basis of an alleged compromise entered into between parties.
(ii) At a very belated stage, contesting respondents filed an appeal against above referred order dated 24.8.1984, along with an application for condonation of delay.
(iii) The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 9.12.2022 has condoned delay of about three and half decades in filing the appeal.
3. Above referred order was challenged by petitioners by way of filing a revision petition however it was dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2023.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners preferred a Writ Petition No.1126 of 2023 which was allowed in part vide order dated 26.4.2023, whereby impugned orders therein were set-aside and matter was remitted to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal afresh. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:
" 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the order under Section 12 of Act of 1953 has been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise on 24.8.1984. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 11 (1) of Act of 1953 has been filed by respondent no.4 after 36 years on 17.3.2020 along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act which has been allowed by the impugned order and date has been fixed for disposal of appeal on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
9. Since, the order has been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 24.8.1984 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and respondent no.4 became major in the year 1988-19 according to the pleadings setup by him but the appeal has been filed by respondent no.4 on 17.3.2020, there is no proper explanation in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 36 years and the appellate Court vide order dated 9.12.2022 has condoned the delay only by saying that the order is without jurisdiction, hence order requires consideration. The operative portion of the appellate order runs as follows:
10. There is no proper consideration by the appellate Court for condoning the delay of 36 years. The law is settled that there can be liberal view with respect to the sufficiency of cause but in respect to the reality of cause, there can be no liberal view, as such, respondent no.4 has to give proper explanation of 36 years as the right has been created in favour of person in whose favour the order was passed and subsequently the property has been sold out to other persons.
11. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Balwant Singh (supra) is relevant for the instant matter, paragraph no.13 of the judgment is as under:-
"13. As held by this Court in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh AIR 2003 SC 4244: 2003 AIR SCW 4878 (supra)the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed strictly. On the other hand
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
