2012 Supreme(SC) 285

2012 (2) Supreme 674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
Maniben Devraj Shah — Appellant
versus
Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2970-2971 of 2012
Decided on : 9-4-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.

Headnote:Limitation Act,1963- Section 5-Order passed by High Court condoning 7 years and 108 days delay in filing appeals against judgments and decrees passed by City Civil Court-Appeals- Whether the cause shown by Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai for condonation of 7 years and 108 days delay in filing appeals against judgments and decrees passed by the City Civil Court was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Act and Single Judge was justified in condoning the delay –Held unfortunately, Single Judge of the High Court altogether ignored the gapping holes in the story concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of judgment for more than 7 years- The cause shown by Corporation for delayed filing of the appeals was, to say the least, wholly unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned by Single Judge for condoning more than 7 years delay could not but be treated as poor apology for the exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act- Impugned order set aside –Appeals allowed. (Paras 22, 23)

        The Limitation Act, 1963-Law of limitation-Scope and ambit of- The law of limitation is founded on public policy- The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay- The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature- At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation- The expression sufficient cause used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serve the ends of justice- No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay (Para 12)

        Limitation Act,1963- Section 5- Exercise of power under- Even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost- What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation- If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay- If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay (Para 18)

       Facts of the Case :

        Whether the cause shown by Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (for short, the Corporation) for condonation of 7 years and 108 days delay in filing appeals against judgments and decrees dated 2.5.2003 passed by the City Civil Court (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in L.C. Suit Nos. 2726, 2727, 2728 of 1999 was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court was justified in condoning the delay is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.

       Findings of the Court :

        Unfortunately, Single Judge of the High Court altogether ignored the gapping holes in the story concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of judgment for more than 7 years. The cause shown by Corporation for delayed filing of the appeals was, to say the least, wholly unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned by Single Judge for condoning more than 7 years delay could not but be treated as poor apology for the exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Impugned order held liable to be set aside .Appeals were allowed.