2021 13 1503 32143 Judgement 16-Dec-2021
2021 13 1503 32143 Judgement 16-Dec-2021
2021 13 1503 32143 Judgement 16-Dec-2021
Versus
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.12.16
huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, the
16:40:28 IST
Reason:
1
appellant original plaintiff – respondent before the High
the delay was also filed being I.A. No.1 of 2021. By the
2
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein
Second Appeal.
delay of 1011 days, the High Court has also not observed
after 15.03.2017 till June, 2021 till the Second Appeal was
preferred.
3
Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762; P.K.
discretion and has condoned the delay, the same may not be
4
appeal will be considered and decided on merits and
5
due diligence. It appears being a bonafide attempt on the
part of the petitioners to canvass their claim particularly
when the trial court had accepted their plea, which was
subjected to reversal by the appellate court. However, the
petitioners should compensate the respondent by means
of costs for this delay. The contention of the respondent
that valuable rights are accrued to her on account of
inaction of the petitioners in failing to prefer the Second
Appeal within time, cannot be a significant factor in the
backdrop of the circumstances found in this case.
Thus from the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court
6.1 The High Court has observed that if the delay is condoned no
6
6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for
for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was
and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was
suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from
15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021
has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has
7
making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the
decreeholder to treat the decree as binding between the
parties. In other words, when the period of limitation
prescribed has expired the decreeholder 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 decreeholder 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 is 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. As has been observed by
the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan, (1890)
J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion
which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the
way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be
exercised upon principles which are well understood; the
words ‘sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so
as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor
inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the
appellant."
8
while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court
under:
this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and
The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber
10
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before the High
well as on facts.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
11
ground of delay. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
December 16, 2021
12