State of Madhya Pradesh vs Satyendra Singh

This appeal under Section 96 of CPC at the instance of State Government is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/1/2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 01-B/2006 alongwith an application (I.A. No. 6116/2010) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as the appeal is barred by 717 days.

Upon service of notice, respondent No. 1 has filed reply to the aforesaid application for condonation of delay.

I.A. No. 6116/2010 is taken up for consideration.

Upon perusal of the application, it is apparent that there is no explanation for the delay caused in filing the appeal. In para 1 of the application, it is stated that to obtain certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28/1/2008 appellants filed application on 21/2/2008 and the certified copy was delivered on 26/2/2008. Thereafter, matter was in the process of seeking legal opinion of the Government Advocate. In para 2, it is stated that the Law Department granted permission for filing the appeal on 27/1/2010. The OIC had contacted the office of Advocate General on 17/3/2010. He was directed by the Advocate General''s office to come alongwith the relevant record to file the appeal, therefore, he went back and again contacted in the Advocate General''s office on 21/4/2010. The appeal was accordingly filed. With the aforesaid skeleton application, the formidable delay of 717 days is explained and It is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits.

The aforesaid submissions made in the application do suggest that instant case is a classic case where the State in fact is in deep slumber for long period of 717 days or more. Explanation offered by way of the instant skeleton application under section 5 of the Limitation Act can hardly be said to be one showing sufficient cause preventing the appellants/State to file First Appeal within limitation. The appeal is hopelessly time barred by 717 days. Moreover, the averments contained in the application for delay are hypothetical and vague, hence, sufficient cause has not been shown for delay in filing the appeal.

Law as regards scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is well settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the various High Courts.

In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., , Hon. Supreme Court in para 7 has held as under:-

"7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation Act) it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay in shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice."

Hon. Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, , has held in para 6 as under:-

"6. 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."

As regards meaning, scope and rationale of the law of limitation, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, has held as under:

"26. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury''s Laws of England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:

"605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.- The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence."

Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of peace''. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and Others Vs. Santa Singh and Others, has observed : (SCC p.712, para 18)

"18. The object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party''s own inaction, negligence or laches".

In Tilokchand and Motichand and Others Vs. H.B. Munshi and Another, , this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."

While dealing with the scope of jurisdiction under section 5 of the Limitation Act, as regards condonation of delay, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by L.Rs. Vs. State of A.P. and Others, has observed as under:

"19. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. At the outset, it needs to be stated that generally speaking, the courts in this country, including this Court, adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

This principle is well settled and has been set out succinctly in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, .

The concepts of liberal approach and reasonableness in exercise of the discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, have been again stated by this Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, , as follows:-

"25. We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation."

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly."

We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, 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. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court 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. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 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. "

Hon. Supreme Court in a recent decision Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, has held in para 24 as under:-

"24. What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay."

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of law as regards object, scope, extent, limitation and the discretionary power to be exercised under section 5 of the Limitation Act laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the delay of about 717 days caused in filing the appeal by the appellants/State is miserably barred by limitation as neither sufficient cause is shown in the application seeking condonation of delay nor the same is found to be to the satisfaction of this Court.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 6116/2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal is rejected. Consequently, First Appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs.