Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Inder Singh against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh condoning the delay of 1537 days in filing the Second Appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The dispute pertained to a suit for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the appellant in 2012 regarding a land survey number. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2013, but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in 2015, declaring the appellant as the landlord. The State filed a Review Petition before the First Appellate Court with a delay of over two years, which was dismissed in 2019. Thereafter, the State filed a Second Appeal in 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason. The High Court condoned the delay, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in condoning the inordinate delay. The Court held that the State cannot claim any undue indulgence in matters of limitation and must act with due diligence. The explanation of delay due to COVID-19 was insufficient as the cause of action arose much earlier. The Court emphasized that a liberal approach does not mean condoning delay caused by negligence. The Court set aside the Impugned Order and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, thereby allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Government Litigant - The court held that the State cannot claim any undue indulgence in matters of limitation and must act with due diligence. The High Court's order condoning delay was set aside as the State failed to explain the inordinate delay of 1537 days with sufficient cause, and the mere reference to COVID-19 was not enough when the cause of action arose much earlier. (Paras 13-18) B) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Liberal Approach - Prima Facie Merits - While courts may adopt a liberal approach when some plausible cause is shown, a liberal approach does not mean condoning delay caused by a lackadaisical and negligent manner of functioning. The State did not make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. (Paras 14, 17-18) C) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Delay - COVID-19 Pandemic - The court noted that the delay in filing the Second Appeal was not solely attributable to COVID-19, as the cause of action arose much before the pandemic. The State's explanation was insufficient to condone the inordinate delay. (Paras 10, 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the inordinate delay of 1537 days in filing the Second Appeal by the State, especially when the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed on the ground of delay.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the High Court, and dismissed I.A. No.2022/2020 filed by the respondent for condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Sufficient cause
- Condonation of delay
- Government litigant
- Due diligence
- Liberal approach
- COVID-19 pandemic
