advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Sec.5 of Limitation Act - Delay of more than 10 years in filing appeal - No sufficient grounds assigned - simply because in some of the cases filed appeal in time , were given enhanced compensation - there is no obligation on the part of court to condone the delay - Apex court held that the High court correctly dismissed the sec. 5 Limitation petition in filing an appeal = Brijesh Kumar & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondents = 2014 ( March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41333

  Sec.5 of Limitation Act - Delay of more than 10 years in filing appeal - No sufficient grounds assigned - simply because  in some of the cases filed appeal in time , were given enhanced compensation - there is no obligation on the part of court to condone the delay - Apex court held that the High court correctly dismissed the  sec. 5 Limitation petition in filing an appeal =

the  judgment  and
      order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab  &  Haryana
      at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in  RFA  No.5793
      of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years  in  filing  the
      appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
      referred to as the ‘Act’).=
petitioners had chosen not to file appeal  at
      the initial stage but filed the same in the year 2012 after a lapse of
      10 years 2 months and 29 days.  
The High Court refused to condone  the
      delay in spite of the fact that other persons who  had  preferred  the
      appeals in time had been given a higher compensation.
           Hence, these petitions.=
11.   The courts should not adopt an  injustice-oriented  approach  in
      rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the  court
      while allowing such application has  to  draw  a  distinction  between
      delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of  an  inaction  or
      negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the
      Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a  condition  precedent  for
      exercise of discretion by the Court for  condoning  the  delay.   This
      Court has time and again held that when  mandatory  provision  is  not
      complied with and that  delay  is  not  properly,  satisfactorily  and
      convincingly  explained,  the  court  cannot  condone  the  delay   on
      sympathetic grounds alone.
      12.   It is also a well settled principle of law that if  some  person
      has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the
      cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit  thereof
      approaching the court at a belated stage  for  the  reason  that  they
      cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the  order  passed  at  the
      behest of some diligent person.
      13.   In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors.,  (1996)  6
      SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should  be
      considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that  he  filed
      the petition just after coming to know of the relief  granted  by  the
      Court  in  a  similar  case  as  the  same  cannot  furnish  a  proper
      explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a  plea
      is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay
      and laches.
      14.   Same view has been reiterated by this Court  in  Jagdish  Lal  &
      Ors. v. State of Haryana &  Ors.,  AIR  1997  SC  2366,  observing  as
      under:–
           “Suffice it to state that appellants kept  sleeping  over  their
           rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus
           from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh’s ratios…Therefore desperate
           attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by  them
           in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review  at
           this belated stage.  The  High  Court,  therefore,  has  rightly
           dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.”


      15.   In M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,  AIR  1989
      SC 674, this  Court considered a case where petitioner wanted  to  get
      the relief on the basis of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  wherein  a
      particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court  rejected  the
      petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under:–
           “There is one more ground which basically sets the present  case
           apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they  have  not
           pursued for several years. Petitioners  were  not  vigilant  but
           were content to be


           dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else’s  case
           came to be decided.”

      16.    In  the  instant  case,  after  considering   the   facts   and
      circumstances and the reasons for  inordinate  delay  of  10  years  2
      months and 29 days, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds  to
      condone the delay.


      17.   In view of the facts of the case and the above-cited  judgments,
       we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment.   The  petitions
      lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. 

2014 ( March. Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41333

                                                        Reportable

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.6609-6613 OF 2014


      Brijesh Kumar & Ors.                         … Petitioners

                                   Versus

      State of Haryana & Ors.                       …Respondents


                                  O R D E R


      1.    These petitions have been filed  challenging  the  judgment  and
      order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab  &  Haryana
      at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in  RFA  No.5793
      of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years  in  filing  the
      appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
      referred to as the ‘Act’).
      2.    The land of  the  petitioners  alongwith  the  lands  of  others
      admeasuring 134 acres, 5 kanals  and  10  marlas  situate  in  revenue
      estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil Jagadhri,  District
      Yamuna Nagar stood notified under Section 4 of the  Act  on  8.9.1993.
      In respect of the same, the award was made  by  the  Land  Acquisition
      Collector on 8.10.1997 assessing the market value of the land  of  the
      petitioners @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre.
      3.    Aggrieved, the petitioners and other  persons  interested  filed
      references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation
      and the Reference Court made  the  award  on  7.9.2001  assessing  the
      market value of the land @ Rs.1,85,000/- per acre and they  were  also
      given other statutory benefits.
      4.    Aggrieved, some of the persons interested filed  appeals  before
      the High Court, however, petitioners had chosen not to file appeal  at
      the initial stage but filed the same in the year 2012 after a lapse of
      10 years 2 months and 29 days.  The High Court refused to condone  the
      delay in spite of the fact that other persons who  had  preferred  the
      appeals in time had been given a higher compensation.
           Hence, these petitions.


      5.     Shri  Shish  Pal  Laler,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
      petitioners has submitted that it was a fit case where the delay ought
      to have been condoned and the High Court has committed an error in not
      entertaining the appeal on merit.
      6.    The High Court had given cogent and  valid  reasons  and  relied
      upon large number of judgments  of  this  Court  while  rejecting  the
      application for condonation of delay including Mewa Ram  (Deceased  by
      L.Rs) & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v.
      Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai  v.  State
      of  Kerala & Anr., AIR 2007  SC 2624.
      7.     The  issues  of  limitation,  delay  and  laches  as  well   as
      condonation of such delay are being examined and explained  every  day
      by the Courts.
           The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim  “Interest
      Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium” (it is for the general welfare that a
      period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation  are  not  meant  to
      destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal
      remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
      8.    The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation
      Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul  Rahim,  AIR  1941  PC  6,  relied  upon  the
      writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has  been
      said that “a law of limitation and prescription may appear to  operate
      harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for
      a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship  to  a
      particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable  grounds,  enlarge
      the time allowed by the law,  postpone  its  operation,  or  introduce
      exceptions not recognised by law.”
      9.    In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala  &  Anr.,  AIR  1998  SC
      2276,  the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay
      of 565  days,  wherein  no  explanation  much  less  a  reasonable  or
      satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held
      as under:–
           “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but  it
           has to be applied with  all  its  rigour  when  the  statute  so
           prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period  of
           limitation on equitable grounds.”


      10.    While  considering  a  similar  issue,  this  court   in   Esha
      Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12  SCC  649
      laid down various principles inter alia:
           “     x          x           x
           v)     Lack  of  bona  fides  imputable  to  a   party   seeking
           condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact


             vi) The concept  of  liberal  approach  has  to  encapsule  the
                 conception of reasonableness and it  cannot  be  allowed  a
                 totally unfettered free play


                     x      x           x
           ix)   The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating  to
           its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into
           consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the
           courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice  in
           respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a
           total go by in the name of liberal approach.


                 x          x           x


           xvii) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious
           mater and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a
           nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
           parameters.”


      (See also: Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81)


      11.   The courts should not adopt an  injustice-oriented  approach  in
      rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the  court
      while allowing such application has  to  draw  a  distinction  between
      delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of  an  inaction  or
      negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the
      Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a  condition  precedent  for
      exercise of discretion by the Court for  condoning  the  delay.   This
      Court has time and again held that when  mandatory  provision  is  not
      complied with and that  delay  is  not  properly,  satisfactorily  and
      convincingly  explained,  the  court  cannot  condone  the  delay   on
      sympathetic grounds alone.
      12.   It is also a well settled principle of law that if  some  person
      has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the
      cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit  thereof
      approaching the court at a belated stage  for  the  reason  that  they
      cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the  order  passed  at  the
      behest of some diligent person.
      13.   In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors.,  (1996)  6
      SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should  be
      considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that  he  filed
      the petition just after coming to know of the relief  granted  by  the
      Court  in  a  similar  case  as  the  same  cannot  furnish  a  proper
      explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a  plea
      is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay
      and laches.
      14.   Same view has been reiterated by this Court  in  Jagdish  Lal  &
      Ors. v. State of Haryana &  Ors.,  AIR  1997  SC  2366,  observing  as
      under:–
           “Suffice it to state that appellants kept  sleeping  over  their
           rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus
           from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh’s ratios…Therefore desperate
           attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by  them
           in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review  at
           this belated stage.  The  High  Court,  therefore,  has  rightly
           dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.”


      15.   In M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,  AIR  1989
      SC 674, this  Court considered a case where petitioner wanted  to  get
      the relief on the basis of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  wherein  a
      particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court  rejected  the
      petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under:–
           “There is one more ground which basically sets the present  case
           apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they  have  not
           pursued for several years. Petitioners  were  not  vigilant  but
           were content to be


           dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else’s  case
           came to be decided.”

      16.    In  the  instant  case,  after  considering   the   facts   and
      circumstances and the reasons for  inordinate  delay  of  10  years  2
      months and 29 days, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds  to
      condone the delay.


      17.   In view of the facts of the case and the above-cited  judgments,
       we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment.   The  petitions
      lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.




                                              ………………………J.
                       (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)






                                               ………………………J.
                                             (J. CHELAMESWAR)
      New Delhi
      March 24, 2014.



-----------------------
6


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.