Supreme Court Condones Delay Due to Illness in Family Dispute Appeal: Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida (2018)

Date of the Judgment: March 08, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 191

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a High Court dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of delay, even when the appellant provides a valid reason for the delay, such as a serious illness? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a family dispute. The Court examined whether the High Court was right in dismissing an appeal due to a 554-day delay, despite the appellant’s claim of prolonged illness. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case involves a family dispute where Respondent No. 1, the wife of Respondent No. 6 and daughter-in-law of the Appellant, filed a suit in the Family Court, Malappuram. The suit, O.P. No. 1011 of 2011, sought the return of gold ornaments or their monetary value, which were allegedly given to the Appellant and Respondent No. 6 during her marriage. Additionally, she sought maintenance under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act. The Appellant, the father-in-law, was initially a defendant in the case but was later declared ex-parte for not appearing in court on 16.10.2014. Consequently, the Family Court passed an ex-parte decree against the Appellant on the same day.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Appellant, after being declared ex-parte, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Family Court dismissed these applications on 04.03.2016, without considering the merits of the case. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 653/2016) before the High Court, which was delayed by 554 days. The High Court dismissed both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay, stating that the Appellant had not provided a sufficient cause for the delay. This led to the Appellant filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the condonation of delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act states:
“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, when the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appellant’s illness constituted a “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to his prolonged illness.
• He submitted medical documents to support his claim of suffering from heart disease and dengue fever during the relevant period.
• The appellant contended that he was hospitalized for a significant time and was mentally disturbed due to family disputes, which prevented him from attending to his daily duties.
• The appellant argued that the High Court should have taken a liberal view considering his age and health condition.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondents did not make any specific arguments against the condonation of delay, the High Court had already dismissed the condonation of delay.
• The respondents relied on the High Court’s decision that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal due to a 554-day delay, despite the appellant’s claim of prolonged illness and submission of medical documents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act: The Court interpreted the provision to allow for condonation of delay when sufficient cause is shown.
• The Court noted that the earlier view requiring the appellant to explain each day of delay has been diluted by later decisions of the Supreme Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the earlier view of the Supreme Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The appellant’s advanced age (late sixties).
• The undisputed fact that the appellant suffered from serious ailments, including heart disease and dengue fever, during the relevant period.
• The fact that the appellant was hospitalized for a long time.
• The genuineness of the medical documents submitted by the appellant was not disputed by the High Court.
• The court’s view that a liberal approach should be taken when dealing with cases involving old age and health issues.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the High Court should have adopted a more liberal approach in considering the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, especially given his age and health conditions. The Court emphasized that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of illness. The Court also noted that the earlier strict interpretation of delay condonation has been diluted by later decisions. The Court stated:

“In our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the appellant, which is duly proved by the documents, we are inclined to hold that the cause shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court was/is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act”.

The Court also observed:

“It is not in dispute that the appellant is an old man and in his late sixties. It is also not in dispute that he did suffer heart disease during the relevant period and later he was down with dengue fever. It is also not in dispute that he was hospitalized to get medical treatment for these two ailments for a long time during that period.”

Further, the court noted:

“One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized that a liberal view should be taken when considering condonation of delay applications, especially in cases involving elderly individuals with health issues.
• Medical evidence can be considered a sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
• The earlier strict requirement to explain each day’s delay has been diluted by later decisions of the Supreme Court.
• High Courts should not dismiss appeals solely based on delay if there is a valid reason supported by evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the appeal on merits expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the illness of an appellant, supported by medical evidence, can be considered a “sufficient cause” for condoning a delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should adopt a liberal approach in such matters, especially when dealing with elderly individuals with health issues. The judgment also clarifies that the earlier strict interpretation of requiring an explanation for each day’s delay is no longer good law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and condoned the 554-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s prolonged illness, supported by medical evidence, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The case was remanded to the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a liberal approach when considering condonation of delay applications, particularly in cases involving genuine health issues.