Summary
The High Court condoned a delay of 1537 days by the State in filing a second appeal against a decree declaring the appellant owner of land that the State claimed, and held, as government land in its possession. The Court declined to interfere: while the State gets no special indulgence in matters of limitation and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, a case whose merits require examination should not be scuttled on limitation, and the title dispute between a private party and the State over land in public use deserved a hearing on merits. Appeal dismissed, with condonation made subject to the State paying Rs 50,000 costs within a month.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in condoning, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a delay of 1537 days by the State in filing a second appeal, when part of the delay was spent in a review petition itself dismissed for delay.
- Whether the State is entitled to a more liberal approach than a private litigant in the condonation of delay.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Section 5 permits an appeal to be admitted after the prescribed period on proof of sufficient cause. The Court accepted that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause and that the State, like any party, must act with due diligence, but held that where the merits require examination the matter should not be scuttled on limitation; in the peculiar facts (a title dispute between a private party and the State over land in public use, an execution case showing the appellant was not in possession, and a suit originally dismissed by the trial court) the condonation was upheld subject to costs. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18, 21)
- Article 12, Constitution of IndiaReferred to for the proposition that all parties, whether or not 'State' within Article 12, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude in matters of limitation. (¶ 13)
Held
- The State cannot be given any undue indulgence compared to an ordinary litigant in matters of limitation; all parties, whether or not 'State' under Article 12, must act with due diligence and promptitude. Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but where the merits of a case need to be examined, they should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The rule against entertaining belated claims is a rule of practice resting on discretion, not an inviolable rule of law, and each case depends on its own facts (Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar, A B Govardhan). In the peculiar facts, namely a title dispute between a private party and the State over land taken into possession and allotted for public purposes, the appellant's own execution case showing he was not in possession, the trial court having originally dismissed the suit, and the delay comprising two years four months in a review petition and about a year thereafter, the second appeal deserved to be heard on merits and the condonation order was not interfered with. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The respondent-State was cautioned to show promptitude in like matters in future, failing which the Court may not be as liberal. To offset the appellant's hardship, condonation of the delay was made conditional on the State paying costs of Rs 50,000 to the appellant within one month, failing which the second appeal would stand peremptorily dismissed; if paid, the High Court was requested to take up the second appeal on priority. The observations were confined to the condonation order and do not affect the merits. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's order condoning delay upheld, subject to the respondent-State paying costs of Rs 50,000 to the appellant within one month, failing which the second appeal shall stand peremptorily dismissed. On payment, the High Court is requested to hear the second appeal on priority. Parties at liberty to raise all contentions on merits.