2015 (3) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Municipal corporation's 7-year delay in filing appeals rejected despite claiming misplaced papers under Section 5 Limitation Act

The SC set aside an HC order that condoned a 7-year delay by a municipal corporation in filing appeals. The corporation claimed misplacement of papers as ... Maintainability of the suit on the ground that notice under Section 527 - applications for condonation of 7 years and 108 days delay - Misplacement of the papers - Legality of the notices issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Whether the cause shown by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (the Corporation) for condoning a delay of 7 years and 108 days in filing appeals was sufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Held that:- What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression ‘sufficient cause’ would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies / instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest. Thus, it is to be seen whether the explanation given by the respondent for condonation of more than 7 years and 3 months delay was satisfactory and whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court had correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court for the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge of the High Court altogether ignored the gapping holes in the story concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of judgment for more than 7 years. In our considered view, the cause shown by the Corporation for delayed filing of the appeals was, to say the least, wholly unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for condoning more than 7 years delay cannot but be treated as poor apology for the exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the respondent against the judgments of the trial Court are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.2. Legality of the notices issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.3. Entitlement to alternative accommodation.4. Maintainability of the suit without notice under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.5. Entitlement to relief.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealsThe primary issue was whether the cause shown by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (the Corporation) for condoning a delay of 7 years and 108 days in filing appeals was sufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Corporation argued that the delay was due to the misplacement of papers and the transfer of the concerned advocate. The High Court condoned the delay, citing a liberal approach in such matters to serve the ends of justice. However, the Supreme Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the Corporation failed to provide crucial details such as when the papers were misplaced, who misplaced them, and when they were found. The Court emphasized that the successful litigant had acquired certain rights based on the trial court's judgment, and the delay was not justified.2. Legality of Notices Issued Under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888The appellants sought a declaration that the notices issued by the Corporation for the demolition of properties were illegal and not binding. The trial court found in favor of the appellants, declaring the notices illegal, bad in law, and issued with malafides. The Corporation did not challenge this finding within the prescribed period, leading to the appeals being filed after a significant delay.3. Entitlement to Alternative AccommodationThe appellants argued that the Corporation's action was discriminatory as other individuals affected by road widening were allowed to construct mezzanine floors and were allotted alternative accommodation. The trial court agreed, ruling that the appellants were entitled to alternative accommodation. The Corporation's delay in appealing this decision further complicated the matter.4. Maintainability of the Suit Without Notice Under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888The Corporation contended that the suit was not maintainable as the appellants had not given notice under Section 527 of the Act. However, the trial court found the suit maintainable, and this issue was not effectively contested by the Corporation within the limitation period.5. Entitlement to ReliefThe trial court decreed the suits, granting the relief sought by the appellants, which included the declaration of the notices as illegal and the entitlement to alternative accommodation. The Corporation's failure to file timely appeals meant that the trial court's judgments stood unchallenged for over seven years.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the cause shown by the Corporation for the delayed filing of appeals was wholly unsatisfactory. The High Court's decision to condone the delay was deemed a poor exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the Corporation's appeals against the trial court's judgments. The parties were left to bear their own costs.