2012 (7) TMI 1019 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause to condone delay present or not - validity of ex-parte decree passed - right to appeal - regular appeal u/s 96 CPC - certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of the Advocate - 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 serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. HELD THAT - the Respondent was very much conscious of the fact that the appeal filed by him against order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the trial Court had been dismissed by the High Court on 11.12.2008 and he had obtained certified copies of the documents which are said to have handed over to the counsel on 10.1.2009 he did not make any effort to contact the concerned advocate till the first week of March 2010 to ascertain the fate of the appeal supposed to have been filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2006. Not only this the application and affidavit filed by him are conspicuously silent about the name of the advocate to whom the papers were entrusted tor the purpose of preparing the grounds of appeal. The affidavit of the concerned advocate was also not filed. if there was any iota of truth in the Respondent s story that the certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of his counsel and the same were noticed by the counsel on 2.3.2010 while preparing arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001 the minimum which he was expected to do was to file an affidavit of the concerned advocate. Why he did not do so has not been explained by the Respondent. Notwithstanding this the learned Single Judge assumed that the counsel to whom the Appellant is said to have handed over the documents was remiss in the performance of his duties and on that account the same got tagged with another file resulting in the delay. In the present case the statement made by the Respondent about misplacement of the documents by the office of the Advocate was vague to the core and the learned Single Judge committed grave error by entertaining the fanciful explanation given for 1236 days delay. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the Respondent for condonation of 1236 days delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of 1236 days delay in filing an appeal.
2. Application of the "sufficient cause" standard under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Evaluation of the explanation provided by the Respondent for the delay.
4. Interpretation of judicial precedents regarding delay condonation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of 1236 Days Delay in Filing an Appeal:
The primary issue is whether the 1236 days delay in filing an appeal by the Respondent against the ex-parte judgment dated 18.08.2006 should be condoned. The Respondent attributed the delay to the misplacement of certified copies of documents by the office of his counsel. The High Court condoned the delay, accepting the explanation provided by the Respondent.

2. Application of the "Sufficient Cause" Standard:
The Supreme Court examined the application of the "sufficient cause" standard under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to enable courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice. The Court referenced the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, highlighting that a liberal approach should be adopted to ensure substantial justice.

3. Evaluation of the Explanation Provided by the Respondent:
The Respondent claimed that after obtaining certified copies of documents on 09.01.2009, he handed them over to his counsel on 10.01.2009. However, the documents were misplaced and were only found on 02.03.2010. The Supreme Court found this explanation to be vague and lacking credibility. The Court noted that the Respondent did not make any effort to contact the advocate for over a year and did not provide the name of the advocate or an affidavit from the concerned advocate.

4. Interpretation of Judicial Precedents:
The Court referred to several precedents to guide its decision:
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji: Emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay to ensure justice is served on merits.
- N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy: Highlighted that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is acceptable, and the discretion exercised by the court should not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary or perverse.
- P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala: Stressed that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously when prescribed by statute.
- Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai: Noted that while a liberal approach is required, the courts should not ignore the rights acquired by the successful litigant and the time consumed in litigation.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Respondent's explanation lacked credibility and the High Court erred in condoning the delay based on a vague and unsubstantiated explanation. The appeal was allowed, and the application for condonation of 1236 days delay was dismissed. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure timely redressal of legal injuries and prevent unending uncertainty.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay, emphasizing the need for a credible and bona fide explanation for delays. The judgment underscores the balance between a liberal approach to delay condonation and the necessity of adhering to the statutory limits to ensure timely justice.