Supreme Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Appeal with Costs. Delay of 769 days in filing appeal condoned on payment of costs, restoring the appeal to its original file.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a special leave petition filed by Sainik Security against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to a delay of 769 days. The Supreme Court examined the application for condonation of delay and the reasons provided by the petitioner. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the reasons stated in the application constituted sufficient cause for allowing the delay. The court permitted the condonation of delay on the condition that the petitioner pays costs of Rs.10,000 to the respondents within three months. It specified that if the costs were not paid within the stipulated time, the earlier order would be confirmed, and the application for condonation would be rejected. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the appeal to its original file, and disposed of the special leave petition accordingly.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 5 - The court found that the facts presented in the application constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The application was allowed on the condition of payment of costs to the respondents, failing which the order would stand confirmed and the application rejected. Held that the appeal was restored to its original file (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 769 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the application for condonation of delay on payment of costs of Rs.10,000 to the respondents within three months, restoring the appeal to its original file.

Law Points

  • Condonation of delay
  • sufficient cause
  • costs
  • restoration of appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (02) 566

Special Leave Petition (civil) 8263 of 2007

2008-02-26

Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi

Sainik Security

Sheela Bai and Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Special leave petition against a High Court order dismissing an application for condonation of delay.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to condone the delay in filing an appeal.

Filing Reason

Delay of 769 days in filing the appeal.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Issues

Whether the delay of 769 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay. Respondents contended against the condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the facts presented constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of allowing appeals to be heard on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. On the above conditions, the impugned order stands set aside.

Procedural History

The special leave petition was filed against the final judgment and order of the High Court dated 22nd January 2007, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Quashing of Summons for Deputy General Manager in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — No Criminal Liability Established.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employee's Rights Under Standing Orders Against Disciplinary Action Under CCA Rules. The court ruled that the Standing Orders, being specific to workmen, govern disciplinary proceedings, overriding the general CCA Rules applicab...