LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label condone delay of 10 years. Show all posts
Showing posts with label condone delay of 10 years. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012

Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5 - Condonation of delay - Appeal by Government Corporation against judgment and decree in civil suit - Also application under for condonation of delay of 4 years - Allowed by Division Bench - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Law Department of the Government Corporation did not approach High Court with clean hands - High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion u/s. 5 - Thus, order of High Court set aside - Application for condonation of delay dismissed - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O 41 r. 3A. The question which arose for consideration was whether the Division Bench of High Court was justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge in the Special Civil Suit.

›
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation ...
Thursday, February 9, 2012

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: Or. 22,r.4 - Abatement of appeal -Inordinate delay in filing application for bringing legal heirs on record and for setting aside abatement - High Court passed a conditional order giving final opportunity to do the needful, failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed-Order not complied with-Subsequently, High Court allowed all applications condoning 3703 days delay in filing the application to bring the legal heirs on record and 883 days delay in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order-Held: Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers- All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law-The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason-Whims or fancies, prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers-High Court, having recorded its conclusions and findings on the unacceptable explanation for delay, should not have condoned unconscionable delay-Judgment of High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and is set aside-Limitation Act, 1963-s. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Remarks in judgment of High Court on performance of government pleaders - Appeal filed by State Government, before High court-Inordinate delay on the part of Government pleaders in taking steps to bring heirs and legal representative of the respondent on record-Remarks made by High Court against Government pleaders-Held: High Court has, rather sarcastically, dubbed the government pleaders as without merit and ability-The approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties-The High Court not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, resorted to blatant sarcasms-The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases-The order of the High Court is 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 have denuded the judgment of impartiality-In its desire to castigate the government pleaders and the Court staff, the High Court has sacrificed the "justice oriented approach", the bedrock of which is fairness and impartiality-The caustic remarks made by the High Court, against the government pleaders and the Court staff clearly exhibit a departure from settled principles- The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and, as such, is set aside- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Or. 22, r.4 - Strictures - Judicial restraint. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court against judgment and decree in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff-respondent died on 25.2.1990 and his counsel filed a memo before the High Court giving the said intimation after notice to the advocate for the appellants. When the appeal came up for hearing on 24.4.1997, the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent again brought to the notice of the High Court the factum of death of his client. Since, inspite of the directions of the High Court, no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs and representatives of the plaintiff-respondent on record, on 6.2.1998, it gave one week's time for compliance failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. As the order was not complied with, the appeal stood dismissed in terms of the order dated 6.2.1998. In the year 2000, an application was filed by the judgment-debtors before the High Court seeking condonation of 883 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998. On 17.8.2000 another application was filed seeking to condone 3703 days delay to bring the legal representatives on record. It was accompanied by an application under Order 22 , Rule 4, CPC. After several adjournments at the instance of the judgment- debtors, the appeal was listed for hearing on 19.8.2003 on which date the High Court allowed all the applications and restored the appeal and posted it for hearing. Aggrieved, the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff filed the appeals.

›
Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. This Court while issuing notice in the SLP had directed proceedings in the appeal pending in the...

Delay -6500- On the part of Government litigant - Condonation of - Land ceiling proceeding - Land Tribunal holding that declarants were holding lands in excess of the ceiling limit - Writ petitions challenging the order of Tribunal by declarants and also by State - Writ by declarants withdrawn - State's writ dismissed - Review filed by State alleging fraud on the part of declarant and the Secretary of Land Tribunal - Delay of 14 years in filing the Review - Dismissal of Review Petition - Special Leave Petition - Delay in filing of 6500 days against original order and 300 days against order in Review

›
Held: Delay, specially in cases where large tracts of land and large sums of revenue involved, is done to protect unscrupulous litigants at ...