2021 (12) TMI 1424 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses Second Appeal due to delay, underscores need for justifiable cause.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 1011 days in filing a Second Appeal, ruling that the respondents failed to provide ... Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - exercise of judicial discretion - law of limitation - due diligence and wilful negligenceCondonation of delay - sufficient cause - exercise of judicial discretion - due diligence and wilful negligence - law of limitation - Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the averments in the application for condonation and found no satisfactory explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 until the filing of the Second Appeal in 2021. The High Court, while condoning the delay, did not articulate that any sufficient cause had been shown; instead it relied on the proposition that the appeal should be heard on merits and observed absence of wilful negligence. Applying this Court's precedents, the bench held that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously within the framework of the law of limitation and that sufficient cause cannot be liberally construed where negligence or inaction is imputable. Given the unexplained long gap and the lack of a reasonable justification, the High Court's exercise of discretion was held to be erroneous and not germane to the principles governing condonation of delay. Consequently, the condonation of the 1011 days delay was found to be unsustainable both on law and on facts. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]High Court's order condoning the delay of 1011 days quashed; Second Appeal dismissed on the ground of delay.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order condoning a delay of 1011 days is quashed and set aside and the Second Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay; no order as to costs. Issues:Delay condonation in Second Appeal filingAnalysis:The appellant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later allowed by the First Appellate Court. The original defendants applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order after the First Appellate Court's decision. However, they waited for approximately 1011 days before preferring the Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court, in an impugned order, condoned this significant delay, leading to the current appeal.The appellant contended that the High Court erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause being shown by the respondents. They argued that the delay was not adequately explained, especially for the period after a certain date. Citing various legal precedents, the appellant sought to set aside the High Court's order based on the lack of a justifiable explanation for the delay.On the other hand, the respondents supported the High Court's decision, emphasizing that condoning the delay would allow for a fair consideration of the appeal on its merits. They argued that dismissing the appeal solely based on the delay would not serve the interests of justice. They urged the court to uphold the High Court's order and allow the appeal to proceed.Upon thorough examination, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to condone the delay of 1011 days was not justified. The Court noted that the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in filing the Second Appeal. Referring to legal principles and precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order condoning the delay, and dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents. The Court held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable both in law and on factual grounds.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents, and allowed the present appeal. The Court emphasized the significance of timely legal actions and the need for a justifiable cause to condone delays in legal proceedings.