Delay/Laches: Condonation of delay – Delay of 1011 days in preferring second appeal by respondents, condoned by High Court – Correctness of – Held: While condoning delay, High Court did not observe that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days was made out – Averments in the application for condonation of delay showed that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal – Delay thus remained unexplained – Discretion was not exercised judiciously by the High Court – Order of High Court quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court observed that if the delay is condoned no prejudice will be caused to the appellant as the appeal would be heard on merits. The High Court also observed that there was no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents nor it suffered from want of due diligence. The averments in the application for condonation of delay showed that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal. [Para 6.1][480-D-E]
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 was not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court did not exercise the discretion judiciously. [Para 6.2][480-F-H] & ORS.
Ramlal,Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962] 2 SCR 762; P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556:[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 204; Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 : [2008]
15 SCR 135; Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 – relied on
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.