2002 (2) TMI 1280 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 5 Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 CPC read liberally to condone delay and allow substitution

SC held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 CPC warrants liberal construction to advance substantial justice, ... Condonation of delay - 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure - substitution of their heirs and legal representatives - appellants before the High Court were rustic and illiterate villagers and undisputedly no sooner their lawyer advised, steps were taken with utmost expedition without any loss of time. - Held that:- The expression 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute 'sufficient cause' or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way. On the facts of present case, Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in upholding order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby prayers for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement were refused and accordingly the delay in filing the petition for setting aside abatement is condoned, abatement is set aside and prayer for substitution is granted. Issues Involved:1. Competence of the appeal due to non-substitution of deceased appellants.2. Condonation of delay and setting aside abatement.3. Interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Appeal Due to Non-Substitution of Deceased Appellants:The appeal in question arose from a partition suit involving approximately 116 acres of land. During the pendency of the appeal, several appellants (Appellant No. 2, 3, 22, and 41) passed away. The learned Single Judge held that the appeal had become incompetent because the appellants did not take timely steps to substitute the deceased parties with their heirs and legal representatives. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.2. Condonation of Delay and Setting Aside Abatement:The appellants argued that they were rustic and illiterate villagers from different families and villages. Upon learning of the deaths, they promptly sought to obtain the necessary Vakalatnamas and filed substitution applications. However, the learned Single Judge refused the substitution of heirs for Appellant Nos. 3, 22, and 41 due to delays of 130 days, five years, and three years, respectively. The appellants contended that there was no mala fide intent or dilatory tactics involved, and the delay should be condoned to advance substantial justice.3. Interpretation of 'Sufficient Cause':The Supreme Court extensively discussed the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cited several precedents, including:- The State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality: The expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction is imputable to a party.- Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India: The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should not be interpreted as penal statutes.- Rama Ravalu Gavade v. Sataba Gavadu Gavade: The Court condoned the delay for an illiterate farmer, setting aside abatement and directing the appeal to be heard on merits.- N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy: The Court held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, and the length of the delay is immaterial if the explanation is acceptable. It emphasized that rules of limitation are meant to prevent dilatory tactics but should not destroy the rights of parties.The Supreme Court concluded that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. It noted that the appellants were rustic and illiterate villagers, and there was no evidence of mala fide intent or dilatory tactics. Therefore, the delay in filing the substitution applications should be condoned.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for a decision on the First Appeal on merits. The Court directed that the parties bear their own costs, emphasizing the need to balance procedural rules with substantial justice.