Back
2011 (2) Supreme 174
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs. — Appellants
versus
State of A.P. & Ors — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2909-2913 of 2005
Decided on : 24-2-2011
Facts of the Case :
Petition was filed by respondent 3 herein in the instant case praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titled therewith, High Court to permit petitioners to bring legal representatives of deceased sole respondent on record.Respondent3 filed another petition praying that High Court may be pleased to set aside abatement caused due to death of sole respondent .An Order was passed by High Court allowing all petitions/applications.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that there was no explanation, much less any plausible explanation to justify the delay of 3703 days in filing application for bringing on record LRs. of sole respondent .
Findings of the Court :
High Court in the impugned order graphically narrated the clear dereliction of duty by concerned government pleaders in not pursuing the appeal before High Court diligently. High Court had set out the different stages at which the government pleaders had exhibited almost culpable negligence in performance of their duties. High Court found the justification given by the government pleaders to be unacceptable. Twice in the impugned order, it was recorded that in normal course, the applications would have been thrown out without having a second thought in the matter. Having recorded such conclusions, inexplicably, High Court proceeded to condone the unconscionable delay. Concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. Approach adopted by High Court showed the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties. Order of the High Court, was based purely on the personal perceptions and predilections of the Judges on the bench. The latent anger and hostility ingrained in the expressions employed in the judgment denuded the judgment of impartiality. In its desire to castigate the government pleaders and the Court staff, High Court sacrificed the “justice oriented approach”, the bedrock of which was fairness and impartiality . Impugned judgment of High Court held unsustainable either in law or in equity. Appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —
1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21117 and 21118 of 2003 dated 19th August, 2003. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has allowed all the petitions/applications.
2. In the applications/petitions, respondent No.3, herein, had sought the following directions:-
“CMP No. 21114/2003: Petition under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titled therewith, the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioners to bring the above stated persons as legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent in Appeal No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the High Court. CMP No. 21115/2003: Petition U/s praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal Order dated 6.2.98 in AS No.8 of 1985 and to restore the appeal to file. CMP No. 21116/2003: Petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of sole respondent i.e. Lanka Venkateswarlu.
CMP No. 21117/2003:
Between
Sri D.E.V Apparao ...Petitioner/impleaded
Petitioner in AS No.8 of 1985 on the file of High Court
And:
1. The State of A.P. rep. by District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Tahsildar, Visakhpatnam ...Respondent/Appellants
3. Lanka Venkateswarlu (died) ...Respondent
Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, prays this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners society to be impleaded as appellant No.3 along with the appellants No. 1 and 2 in AS. 8 of 1985 on the file of the Hon’ble Court to prosecute the appeal. CMP No. 21118/2003: Petition U/s 5 of Limitation Act praying the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Govt. pleader for Appeal for Petitioners in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and of Mr. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for petitioner in CMP No. 21117 of 2003 and of Mr. M.S.R. Subramanyam, Advocate for the respondents in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and G.P. for Appeal for the respondents in CMP No. 21117 of 2003.”
3. We may now briefly notice the relevant facts as stated in the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order of the High Court. The predecessor of the appellants, i.e., Shri Lanka Venkateswarlu, (hereinafter referred to as ‘original plaintiff’), brought a suit O.S. No. 72 of 1979 before the subordinate judge Visakhapatnam for the declaration of his title as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession. The suit schedule property, to the extent of 2 acres was, according to the original plaintiff, covered by survey No. 73/12 in Thokada village. He had purchased the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 15th July, 1961 from one Gonna Appanna son of Venkataswamy of China Gantyda village. The original plaintiff was constrained to file the aforesaid suit on coming to know that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule land to be “banjar land” which vested in the Government. He had also learned that the land was in imminent danger of being illegally alienated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They were claiming that the land was required to issue Pattas to weaker sections of society.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as the defendants to the suit. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and renumbered as O.S. No. 83 of 1981.
5. The aforesaid averments of the original plaintiffs were controverted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was claimed that the plaint sc
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
