Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Ram Lal & Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
AIR 1962 SC 361, [1962] 3 SCR 762
JUDGES: P.B. Gajendragadkar and K.N. Wanchoo
Date of Decision: 04-05-1961
FACTS:-
In this case, appellant challenged the order of the second appellate Court of Judicial Commissioner refusing to excuse one day’s delay committed by it in filing the appeal to set aside decree passed by the trial court. The respondent filed suit for recovery of the money due to the appellant and held ex parte decree. Aggrieved appellant preferred an appeal and also, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner which was rejected on the ground of lack of diligence and negligence on the side of the appellants.
ISSUE:-
Whether appellants were entitled to condonation for delay after explaining sufficient cause for such delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act?
JUDGMENT:-
The liberal construction of the S. 5 of the Act explains that any appeal may be admitted after prescribed limitation period when the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. Mere filing of application for condonation of delay would not be sufficient. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after explanation of sufficient cause a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as his right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested by the court under S. 5 of the Act. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done, it will dismissed automatically but when sufficient cause is shown then the court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay that will naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. In dealing with such applications the court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Ss. 5 and 14.
Therefore, in the opinion of the court, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of S.14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with applications which fall to be decided only under S.5 without reference to S.14.
Undoubtedly, discretion should be exercised in favour of the appellant because the ground of rejection on appellant’s lack or diligence during the period of limitation was not a valid ground.
HELD:-
In the result the appeal is allowed, the delay of one day made in filing the appeal is condoned and the case sent back to the trial court for disposal on the merits in accordance with law.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
