Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original plaintiff, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 23.04.2016. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 01.02.2017. The respondents, original defendants, applied for certified copy on 04.02.2017, which was ready on 10.03.2017. After a delay of 1011 days, they filed a second appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh along with an application for condonation of delay. The High Court condoned the delay by order dated 16.09.2021, observing that no prejudice would be caused and that there was no wilful negligence. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the application for condonation and found that the only explanation was that the respondent was ill from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017, with no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017 until 2021. The Court held that the High Court did not exercise discretion judiciously as there was no sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. Relying on precedents such as Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Supreme Court reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied with rigour and that courts cannot condone delay based on equity when there is negligence or inaction. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, thereby dismissing the second appeal as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The High Court condoned a delay of 1011 days in filing a second appeal without recording that sufficient cause was shown. The Supreme Court held that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and that in the absence of explanation for the entire period, the delay cannot be condoned. (Paras 6-8) B) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Negligence and Inaction - The respondents failed to explain the delay from 15.03.2017 to 2021, indicating gross negligence and want of due diligence. The Supreme Court held that where there is negligence or inaction, no sufficient cause exists, and delay cannot be condoned even by imposing costs. (Paras 6.2, 7.4) C) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Public Policy - The law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure finality of litigation. Courts cannot entertain stale claims on equitable grounds. Delay defeats equity. (Paras 7.3, 7.5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal without sufficient cause being shown.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.09.2021, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.1 of 2021) and consequently the second appeal as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause
- Limitation Act Section 5
- Delay defeats equity
- Courts cannot condone delay without explanation
- Negligence and inaction bar condonation
