Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
AIR 1998 SC 3222, [1998] 7 SCC 123
JUDGES: S. Saghir Ahmad and K.T. Thomas
Date of Decision: 03-09-1998
FACTS:-
This appeal was raised against the order of the High Court setting aside the ex-parte order by the trial court. In suit for declaration of title by the respondent, the trial court grants ex-parte decree on 28.10.1991. Appellant, on coming to know of the decree moved an application to set it aside but dismissed due to delay made of 883 days. In another application for condone of delay, appellant offered an Explanation for the apparently inordinate delay which was accepted by the trial court under S.5 of the Act but the High Court in revision reversed the finding and consequently dismissed the motion on the ground that appellant was negligent and was not careful to verify the stage of the proceedings for a long time.
ISSUE:-
Whether the appellant has explained a sufficient cause for the delay in moving an application as warranted by S. 5 of the Limitation act?
JUDGMENT:-
The Supreme Court considered the issue of condonation of delay as a matter of discretion of the court exercising such power. S.5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the satisfactory explanation is the only criterion. The reasoning offered by the appellant for delay in filing application was due to the negligence and non-action of his counsel which lead to failure to his pleading was satisfactorily accepted and condoned by the trial court. But High Court while rejecting this explanation stated that appellant was negligent and was not careful enough to meet the advocate to verify the stage of the proceedings for a long time. In pursuant to above findings, Supreme Court ruled down that once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion. Normally, the superior court should not disturb such finding much less in revisional jurisdiction unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. Hence, the High Court was in error while setting aside the acceptance of condonation of delay by trail court.
The Law of Limitation fixes a life-span for legal remedy to redress the legal injury so suffered not to destroy the right of parties. In any circumstances, if delay made on part of the litigant it will not turn down his plea or shut the door for justice.
It is well settled law that there cannot be any hard and fast rule to laid down as to what constitutes sufficient cause. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or dilatory the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. Further, court has ruled another salutary guideline that while condoning the delay, court must be borne in mind to compensate the opposite party for his loss incurred on the litigation due the delay or laches on the part of the applicant.
Therefore, High Court under revisional jurisdiction, erred by interfering into the findings of the trial court for condoning the delay. The appellant’s conduct for not vigilantly visiting to his advocate to check up the progress in litigation, did not as a whole shown him as an irresponsible litigant having regarded to present busy and preoccupied life. Thus, Supreme Court, allowed the appeal by restoring the order passed by the trial court.
HELD:-
Thus held, once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient in exercise of his discretion power, superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
