2010 (7) TMI 556 - SC - Indian Laws

778-day delay in adding legal representative cannot be routinely condoned; applicant must show sufficient cause for relief

BALWANT SINGH Versus JAGDISH SINGH

SC held that a 778-day delay in seeking to bring a legal representative on record cannot be condoned as a matter of course; statutory provisions require ... Condonation of delay - Delay of 778 days in filing the application for bringing the legal representative on record - exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court - Held that:- The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The Larger Benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications. Issues Involved:1. Setting Aside of Concurrent Judgments2. Non-Payment of Rent3. Delay in Bringing Legal Representatives on Record4. Condonation of Delay5. Abatement of AppealDetailed Analysis:1. Setting Aside of Concurrent JudgmentsThe Supreme Court reviewed the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which set aside the concurrent judgments of the Appellate Authority, Ambala, and the Rent Controller. The High Court's judgment dated 21st May 2003 reversed the order of ejectment against the respondents under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Rent (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The landlord had initiated the petition on the grounds of non-payment of rent, which was Rs. 200 per month. The tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed title to the property based on an agreement dated 21st November 1953.2. Non-Payment of RentThe primary ground for the eviction petition was the non-payment of rent. The tenant contested this by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership of the property through an old agreement.3. Delay in Bringing Legal Representatives on RecordDuring the pendency of the appeal, the sole petitioner died on 28th November 2007. The legal representatives of the deceased appellant did not take timely steps to bring themselves on record. An application (I.A. No. 1 of 2010) along with another for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2 of 2010) was filed on 15th April 2010, resulting in a delay of 778 days.4. Condonation of DelayThe application for condonation of delay was contested by the non-applicants, who argued that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, making the appeal abate. The Court emphasized that the onus to show sufficient cause lies on the applicant. The applicants claimed ignorance of the appeal's pendency until March 2010, which the Court found unreliable and lacking bona fide. The Court highlighted contradictions in the applicants' statements and found their conduct negligent and callous.5. Abatement of AppealThe Court reiterated that a suit or appeal abates automatically if legal representatives are not brought on record within the stipulated period. The provisions of Order 22 Rule 9, CPC, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were discussed extensively. The Court noted that sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be shown, and mere allegations of belated knowledge are insufficient. The Court referred to several precedents, emphasizing that the delay should not result from negligence or inaction.The Court concluded that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of 778 days. The applications lacked detailed and correct facts, and the conduct of the applicants, particularly Har-Inder Singh, was found abnormal and negligent. Consequently, I.A. No. 2 of 2010 was dismissed, and I.A. No. 1 of 2010 did not survive for consideration. The appeal, having already abated, was also dismissed without any order as to costs.