Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31055
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
THE STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
JUMAILA BEEVI – Respondent
OP(C)/511/2021
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. S.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH, SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY, SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN, SMT.BHOOMIKA SAJAN
The judgment establishes that while liberal condonation of delays may apply to the State, excessive delays without justifiable reasons warrant dismissal.
Headnote:
Delay - Original Petition - Act Section List: None - The court emphasized the need for timely action by government officials, highlighting the importance of accountability and the limits of liberal condonation for delays in governmental proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an original petition arising from a suit regarding government land. The state failed to represent in court, leading to an ex parte decree, followed by multiple delayed applications for setting aside the decree and restoration of earlier applications, all of which were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the lower court's decisions, stating that the delays were unjustifiable and reflecting the negligence of government officials in managing the case.
Issues: Whether the inordinate delays in filing applications for setting aside the ex parte decree and restoration of earlier applications could be justified, especially given that the state was involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liberal approach usually extended to the State regarding delay condonation does not apply when the delays are excessively long and lack sufficient justification.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
This original petition is a classic example of the casual and indifferent manner in which certain officials are conducting cases in which the State Government is a party.
2. The short facts are that, O.S.No.929/2008 on the files of the IInd Additional District Court, Kollam was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration with respect to plaint ‘C’ schedule property and for a direction to correct errors in the re-survey records. The State’s contention is that plaint ‘C’ schedule is Government land and the attempt of the respondent is to secure title over that land. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.11.2009 due to the absence of the official representing the State. 752 days thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Those applications were dismissed for non-representation and failure to take steps. Thereupon, the petitioners moved another application seeking to restore the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The second application was filed with a delay of 638 days. The trial court dismissed the second set of applications on 22.12.2015. Undaunted, the petitioners again moved an application for restoration of the earlier applications, this time with a shorter delay of 105 days. The trial court having dismissed the third set of applications on 06.06.2016, the petitioners preferred CMA Nos.25 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 with a delay of 1007 days. The appeals having been dismissed, this original petition is filed seeking to set aside the judgment/orders and to permit the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.
3. The learned Government Pleader strenuously argued that the State has got valid legal contentions in the suit and if the suit is not decided on merits, public interest will suffer. It is contended that the courts are bound to adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when State is the applicant. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others [ (2005) 3 SCC 752 ] and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and another [ (2010) 2 SCC 461 ].
4. Sri.Shaji Chirayath, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the careless and casual manner in which the suit was contested by the petitioners demonstrate their lack of interest and the Original Petition is filed on an experimental basis. It is contended that, in the absence of sufficient reason, delay cannot be condoned, even if the Government is the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel and having carefully analysed and perused the judgment/orders, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The fact that the Government Pleaders in the trial courts are tied down with criminal matters and adjustments are made by the civil courts, to suit their convenience, neither their busy schedule nor engagement in criminal matters justify the inordinate delay in filing the applications for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the application for restoring the earlier applications dismissed for non- representation and the delay in filing appeals against those orders. The liberal approach to be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay and the even more liberal consideration towards the State, is not reason enough for allowing the original petition. The decisions pressed into service by the learned Government Pleader are also of no avail. The State’s interest having been jeopardised by its officials, it is for the state to fix responsibility and to take appropriate action against the erring officials. Any interference by this Court will cause extreme prejudice to the respondent.
The Original Petition is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
Sd/-V.G.ARUN JUDGE RK APPENDIX OF OP(C) 511/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECREE VIDE I.A. NO. 265/2012 DATED 25.11.2009.
EXHIBIT P2 T
