Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Gadchiroli, and other officers, filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 1 October 2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Misc. Civil Application No. 20/2008. That application was filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 14 months and 10 days in filing a first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2 April 2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2005. The suit was filed by the respondent, Omprakash s/o Parasramji Kabara, against the State. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The State sought to appeal that decree but was delayed by 14 months and 10 days. The lower appellate court refused to condone the delay, holding that the State had failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. Aggrieved, the State filed the present second appeal, which was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the trial judge was justified in decreeing the suit in the absence of a letter dated 16 March 2004 and without considering the effect of Government Resolutions; and (2) whether the lower appellate court arrived at a perverse finding that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The respondent's counsel argued that the first question could only be considered if the second question was answered in the affirmative, i.e., if the finding on delay was overturned. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the lower appellate court's finding that the State failed to show sufficient cause was not perverse. The State's explanation for the delay was that the file was moving from one department to another, but no specific dates or reasons were provided. The court noted that the lower appellate court had considered the evidence and exercised its discretion, and such a finding of fact could not be re-appreciated in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [MANU/SC/0285/2024], which reiterated the principles governing condonation of delay. The High Court concluded that the second substantial question of law was answered in the negative, i.e., the finding was not perverse, and consequently, the first question did not arise. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - The lower appellate court refused to condone delay of 14 months 10 days in filing appeal against judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2005, holding that the appellants (State of Maharashtra) failed to show sufficient cause. The High Court, in second appeal, held that the finding of the lower appellate court was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. The court emphasized that the discretion exercised by the lower appellate court was based on appreciation of evidence and could not be re-appreciated in second appeal. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Perverse Finding - The High Court held that the lower appellate court's finding that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay was not perverse. The court noted that the appellants had merely stated that the file was moving from one department to another without giving specific dates or reasons for the delay. The High Court declined to interfere with the finding, as it was a finding of fact based on evidence. (Paras 5-6) C) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Government Departments - The court observed that even for government departments, the test of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be satisfied. Mere administrative delay without proper explanation does not constitute sufficient cause. The court relied on the principle that the length of delay is less important than the sufficiency of the explanation. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court's finding that the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 14 months 10 days in filing the first appeal is perverse and whether the High Court should interfere with that finding in a second appeal.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the lower appellate court refusing to condone delay is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Perverse finding
- Second appeal
- Section 100 CPC
