Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5– “Sufficient cause” –Ex-parte decree passed against the appellant – Application filed by appellant for setting aside the same along with application for condonation of delay in filing the application, dismissed– Appeal filed by appellant before High Court along with application u/s.5 praying for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the said appeal– High Court dismissed the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay– On appeal, held: It is not disputed that appellant is an old man and that he suffered heart disease during the relevant period and was later down with dengue fever– It is further not disputed that he was also mentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family – Cause shown by appellant, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before High Court, relating to his prolonged illness during the period in question was a sufficient cause within the meaning of s.5– High Court should have taken liberal view in the matter and condoned the delay in filing the appeal– Delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before High Court is condoned, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Or. IX, r.13– Costs.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The cause pleaded by the appellant related to his prolonged illness during the period in question. The appellant also filed medical documents to support the factum of his illness during the relevant time. 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. It is also not in dispute that he was mentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family and was not able to attend to his day-to-day duties due to his old age and prolonged ailments. [Paras 14, 15] [599-F-G]
1.2 The High Court did not dispute the genuineness of these facts and nor disputed the genuineness of the documents filed by the appellant in support of the cause pleaded. On the other hand, the High Court found as a fact that the appellant did suffer these ailments. In the light of the aforementioned undisputed facts, the High Court should have taken liberal view in the matter and held the cause shown by the appellant as “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and accordingly should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 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. [Paras 16-18] [599-H; 600-A-C]
1.3 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, 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 and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned, subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No. 1. The appeal is held to have been filed within limitation. It is accordingly restored to its original number. [Paras 19, 20] [600-D-F]
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.