Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Punjab & Haryana High Court due to a delay of 1942 days. The respondent, Gopi Chand Atreja, had filed a civil suit against HUDA, which was decreed by the Trial Court on 01.05.2001. HUDA's first appeal was dismissed on 07.02.2002. HUDA then filed a second appeal in the High Court with a delay of 1942 days, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the cause pleaded was not sufficient, and dismissed the second appeal as barred by limitation. A review petition was also dismissed. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, examined whether the High Court was justified in not condoning the delay. The Court noted that HUDA is a statutory authority with a legal department and panel lawyers, and the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The Court held that negligence of the legal department or lawyers does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court observed that the officers in charge should be made answerable for the lapse.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Inordinate Delay - The appellant, a statutory authority, filed a second appeal with a delay of 1942 days. The High Court declined to condone the delay, holding that the cause pleaded was not sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the delay was inordinate, unexplained, and the appellant's own negligence in not ensuring timely filing did not constitute sufficient cause. (Paras 10-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal on the ground of limitation and not condoning the delay of 1942 days.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order that the delay of 1942 days was not condonable as the cause pleaded was not sufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Sufficient cause
- Inordinate delay
- Condonation of delay
- Statutory authority duty
