Limitation Act:
s.5 – Condonation of delay – Delay of 1942 days in filing second appeal – Application seeking condonation of delay rejected by the High Court – Held: Delay was inordinate and not properly explained – Appellant-HUDA is a statutory authority created under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and has wellestablished legal department to look after the legal cases in various Courts – Appellants were, therefore, fully aware of the adverse orders passed in the first appeal against them – There was, therefore, no justification on their part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file the appeal within 90 days or/and re-file it immediately after curing the defects – If, according to the appellants-HUDA, their lawyer did not take timely steps, which resulted in delay in its filing/refiling, then, it cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause within the meaning of s.5 of the Limitation Act – Delay rightly not condoned by the High Court – Delay/laches – Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been contesting the civil suit and the first appeal since inception. They were, therefore, fully aware of the adverse orders passed in the first appeal against them. There was, therefore, no justification on their part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file the appeal within 90 days or/and re-file it immediately after curing the defects. It was the duty of the appellants (their legal managers) to see that the appeal be filed in time. If the appellants noticed that their lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the brief in question, then they should have immediately engaged some other lawyer to ensure that the appeal be filed in time by another lawyer. [Paras 17, 19][1003-D-G]
2. It is a clear case where the appellant-HUDA,i.e., their officers, who were in-charge of the legal cell failed to discharge their duty assigned to them promptly and with due diligence despite availability of all facilities and infrastructure. In such circumstances, the officers-in-charge of the case should be made answerable for the lapse on their part and make good the loss suffered by the appellants-HUDA. A delay of 1942 days (4 years
6 months), is wholly inordinate and the cause pleaded for its condonation is equally unexplained by the appellants. In any case, the explanation given does not constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was, therefore, rightly not condoned by the High Court. [Paras 20, 21] [1003-G, H][1004-A, B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.