1. Civil suit for declaration and injunction — Decree affirmed by first appellate court — Second appeal filed with inordinate delay — Application for condonation under Section 5, Limitation Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Gopi Chand Atreja – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5051-5052 of 2009
Decided on : 12-03-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) Delay of 1942 days in filing of second appeal cannot be condoned.
(b) Delay in filing appeal can be condoned only on sufficient cause.
(a) Delay of 1942 days in filing of second appeal cannot be condoned.
(b) Delay in filing appeal can be condoned only on sufficient cause.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Second appeal – Limitation – Delay of 1942 days in filing of second appeal – Second appeal dismissed by High Court as being barred by limitation – Delay was inordinate; it was not properly explained; and ground alleged in support of application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act did not constitute sufficient cause – Delay of 1942 days in filing second appeal in High Court was rightly not condoned by High Court – Appellant-HUDA has its well-established legal department to look after legal cases filed by HUDA and against HUDA in various Courts – Appellants had been contesting civil suit and first appeal since inception – Appellants were fully aware of adverse orders passed in first appeal against them – There was no justification on their part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file appeal within 90 days or/and refile it immediately after curing defects – If appellants noticed that their Lawyer was not taking interest in attending to brief in question, then they should have immediately engaged some other Lawyer to ensure that appeal be filed in time by another lawyer – Officers-Incharge of case should be made answerable for lapse on their part and make good loss suffered by appellants-HUDA – Finding of High Court upheld. (Paras 7, 14 to 22)
Facts of Case:
Delay in filing second appeal. By impugned order High Court rejected application and declined to condone delay. High Court held that cause pleaded by appellants for condoning delay is not a sufficient cause. As a consequence, second appeal was also dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
It is a clear case where the appellant-HUDA, i.e., their officers, who were Incharge of legal cell failed to discharge their duty assigned to them promptly and with due diligence despite availability of all facilities and infrastructure. In such circumstances, officers-Incharge of case should be made answerable for lapse on their part and make good loss suffered by appellants-HUDA.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. Mr. Ronak Karanpuria,Adv. Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv. Mr. Ronak Karanpuria,Adv. Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone an inordinate delay in filing a second appeal. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Inordinate and unexplained delay by a statutory authority with a legal department — Negligence of counsel not a sufficient cause — Duty of legal managers to ensure timely filing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Inordinate and unexplained delay, especially when caused by negligence of counsel or internal administrative failure of a statutory body, does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5, Limitation Act. (Para 15 , 18 , 21 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court's refusal to condone the delay affirmed. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Does the negligence of a lawyer constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
No. The court held that if a lawyer fails to take timely steps resulting in delay in filing or re-filing an appeal, such negligence cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (Para 18 )
7. What is the responsibility of a statutory authority's legal department regarding the timely filing of appeals?
Statutory authorities with established legal departments and managers have a duty to ensure appeals are filed on time. If a lawyer is negligent, the authority should immediately engage alternative counsel to ensure timely filing. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 )
8. When is a delay in filing an appeal considered too inordinate to be condoned?
A delay is considered inordinate and unlikely to be condoned when it is excessive and the cause pleaded is either not properly explained or does not constitute a sufficient cause under the law. (Para 14 , 15 , 21 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 23.01.2008 and 05.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4110 of 2007 and R.A.C. No. 23-C of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 4110 of 2007 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal as well as the review application filed by the appellants herein.
2. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.
3. The appellants herein is the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "HUDA"). They are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
4. The respondent filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 305 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Karnal against the appellants (HUDA) claiming a decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on contest vide judgment/decree dated 01.05.2001.
5. The appellants (defendants) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. By judgment dated 07.02.2002, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Since the appeal filed by the appellant was barred by 1942 days, the appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal.
7. By impugned order dated 23.01.2008, the High Court rejected the application and declined to condone the delay. The High Court held that the cause pleaded by the appellants for condoning the delay is not a sufficient cause. As a consequence, the second appeal was also dismissed as being barred by limitation.
8. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed a review petition. By order dated 05.02.2008, the High Court also dismissed the review petition.
9. Against the orders dated 23.01.2008 and 05.02.2008, the appellants(defendants) have filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
10. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' second appeal on the ground of limitation.
11. In other words, the question arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in not condoning the delay of 1942 days in filing the second appeal by the appellants(defendants).
12. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
14. In our view, the delay of 1942 days in filing the second appeal in the High Court was rightly not condoned by the High Court for the reasons mentioned below.
15. First, the delay was inordinate; Second it was not properly explained; and Third, the ground alleged in support of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not constitute a sufficient cause.
16. The appellant-HUDA is a statutory authority created under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It has its well-established legal department to look after the legal cases filed by HUDA and against the HUDA in various Courts. They have panel of lawyers to defend their interest in Courts.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been contesting the civil suit and the first appeal since inception. The appellants were, therefore, fully aware of the adverse orders passed in the first appeal against them. There was, therefore, no justification on their part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file the appeal within 90 days or/and re-file it immediately after
