Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Conding Delay of 1011 Days in Second Appeal: Majji Sannemma vs Reddy Sridevi (2021) INSC 726

Date of the Judgment: December 16, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 726
Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B. V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court condone an extensive delay in filing a second appeal without a sufficient explanation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, emphasizing the need for diligence in legal proceedings. This judgment clarifies the principles governing the condonation of delay, particularly in the context of second appeals, and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The bench comprised Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case began with a civil suit, O.S. No. 40 of 2013, filed by Majji Sannemma (the appellant) against Reddy Sridevi and others (the respondents) seeking a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on April 23, 2016. Subsequently, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision on February 1, 2017, allowing the suit and setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment. The original defendants (respondents in the Supreme Court) then applied for a certified copy of the judgment on February 4, 2017, which was ready for delivery on March 10, 2017. However, they filed a Second Appeal before the High Court after a delay of 1011 days, along with an application to condone the delay. The High Court condoned this delay, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. However, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision, ruling in favor of the appellant. The respondents then filed a Second Appeal before the High Court, accompanied by an application to condone a delay of 1011 days. The High Court allowed this application, condoning the delay and setting the stage for the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to clarify the principles governing the condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that while the law of limitation may seem harsh, it is essential for ensuring that legal rights are not indefinitely challenged. The court also noted that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, based on sufficient cause, and not liberally when negligence or lack of due diligence is evident.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Original Plaintiff):

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in condoning the 1011-day delay, as the respondents failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.
• It was submitted that the High Court did not observe that sufficient cause had been shown to explain the delay.
• The appellant contended that there was no explanation for the period after March 15, 2017, until the Second Appeal was filed in June 2021.
• The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762, P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556, Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 to support their claim that the delay should not have been condoned.

Respondents’ Arguments (Original Defendants):

• The respondents argued that the High Court had rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the delay, and that the Supreme Court should not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• It was submitted that if the delay is condoned, the appeal would be considered on merits, causing no prejudice to the appellant.
• The respondents argued that they should not be non-suited on technical grounds of delay, and should be given an opportunity to argue the case on merits.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in condoning the 1011-day delay in filing the Second Appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the principles for condoning delay, emphasizing that the expiration of the limitation period creates a right in favor of the decree-holder, which should not be lightly disturbed. It also highlights that the discretion to condone delay should be exercised to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the appellant.
• P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 – Supreme Court of India: This case states that in the absence of a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for seeking condonation of delay, it should not be condoned lightly. It also notes that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor.
• Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 – Supreme Court of India: This case explains that the laws of limitation are founded on public policy, and that courts should not inquire into belated claims on the ground of equity.
• Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 – Supreme Court of India: This case states that the discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts of each case. It also notes that the expression “sufficient cause” should not be liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762 to emphasize that the right accrued to the decree-holder due to the expiration of the limitation period should not be lightly disturbed.
• The Court cited P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 to highlight that condonation of delay should not be granted in the absence of a reasonable explanation.
• The Court referred to Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 to underscore that laws of limitation are founded on public policy and that courts should not inquire into belated claims on the grounds of equity.
• The Court followed Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 to reiterate that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and that “sufficient cause” should not be liberally interpreted if there is negligence or lack of bona fides.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not exercised its discretion judiciously in condoning the 1011-day delay. The Court noted that the respondents had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, particularly for the period after March 15, 2017. The Court emphasized that while the discretion to condone delay exists to advance substantial justice, it cannot be used to overlook gross negligence or lack of due diligence. The Court stated that the High Court’s reasoning that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if the delay was condoned was not germane to the issue of condoning delay.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s reasoning was not in line with the established principles regarding the condonation of delay. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation may seem harsh but it has to be applied with all its rigour. The Court held that the High Court’s decision to condone the delay was unsustainable both on law and facts.

“In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree­holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties.”

“The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal.”

“The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace”.”

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the respondents due to the delay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a sufficient explanation for the extensive delay of 1011 days in filing the Second Appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies. The Court also highlighted that the discretion to condone delay should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, especially when there is clear negligence or lack of due diligence. The Court’s reasoning was also guided by the established principles in previous judgments regarding the condonation of delay.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that delays in legal proceedings should not be condoned lightly, especially when there is a lack of sufficient explanation.
• The judgment emphasizes that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
• Parties must act with due diligence in pursuing their legal remedies, and negligence or inaction will not be excused.
• The law of limitation is essential for ensuring that legal rights are not indefinitely challenged, and courts should not disregard it on equitable grounds.
• This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving the condonation of delay, particularly in the context of second appeals.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s order and dismissing the Second Appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot condone an extensive delay in filing a second appeal without a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the delay. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles on the condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for diligence and adherence to the law of limitation. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this judgment underscores the importance of applying these principles rigorously.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order that had condoned a 1011-day delay in filing a Second Appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient cause for delays and the need for courts to exercise their discretion judiciously. This judgment reinforces the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and that negligence or lack of due diligence cannot be excused.