Delay/Laches: Appeal by State – Delay of 312 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal (RFA) – Condonation of – Dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Condonation was sought by the appellant on the ground that they made a bonafide mistake in preferring the appeal against an order before the wrong forum i.e. District Judge – The District Judge held that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and disposed of appeal permitting the appellant to appeal before High Court – Appeal to High Court – Time spent by appellant in wrong forum was 44 days – High Court rejected the condonation application observing that there was no explanation for time taken by appellant for the remaining period – On that basis, RFA was not entertained on merits – Appeal before Supreme Court – Plea of respondent was that after decree dated 18.7.2016, the execution proceedings commenced and finally concluded on 11.7.2018 and therefore, nothing survived in RFA to be considered on merits inasmuch as, possession of the concerned land was handed over to the respondent – Held: Appellants preferred the appeal at first instance on 15.6.2017 before the District Judge – But since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months and there was no explanation for the time taken by the State between 18.7.2016 and 15.6.2017, the delay in the RFA before the High Court was not condoned – In fact, the Court found that the State did not show as to what prevented them from preferring the appeal before the District Judge (wrong forum), until 15.6.2017 and that the latitude in applying the standards of “sufficient cause” test was not attracted – But while concluding so, it was necessary for the court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it – Regard should be had to the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly – This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State – In the instant case, under the decree passed against the appellants-State and authorities, they were directed to vacate and handover land, projected to be an area of strategic importance by the appellants – Therefore, it was necessary for making available to the appellants a legal forum, which could consider their challenge to the decree – If consideration of the RFA is not permitted on strategically sensitive case involving security, in the ultimate analysis, the public interest is likely to suffer – Therefore, to avoid injustice to the State’s interest and considering the special circumstances in the matter at issue, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution, the delay in filing the first appeal is condoned subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the appellants in the High Court – RFA preferred by the appellants is restored for consideration on its own merits – Issue of possession and finalisation of the execution is made subject to the final decision of the High Court in the RFA – Executing Court directed to refund Rs. 15 lakhs to the appellant-State deposited in the Executing Court.
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.