Andhra Pradesh High Court order condoning delay of 1,011 days set aside by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling which had condoned a delay of 1,011 days in preferring the second appeal [Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v Reddy Sridevi & Ors]..A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said that the reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1,011 days was not germane."The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously," the Court said.It placed reliance on its 2013 judgment in Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer in which the top court had held that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.The apex court had held in that case that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning delay even by imposing conditions..In the instant case, the appellant before the Supreme Court who was the original plaintiff, had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent (original defendants). The trial court dismissed the said suit by judgment and decree dated April 23, 2016. The first appellate court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, by judgment and decree dated February 1, 2017. The original defendants – respondents applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on February 4, 2017. The same was ready for delivery on March 10, 2017. After a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents (original defendants) preferred the second appeal before the High Court. It was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The High Court allowed the same on the ground that there was neither willful negligence of the part of the original respondents nor lack of due diligence. Moreover, there are certain questions, which require a debate in the second appeal, it had said. The plea for condonation was allowed subject to deposit of ₹2,000 costs as compensation in favour of the appellant (original plaintiff). .The Supreme Court, however, said that the delay in preferring the second appeal was due to gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents.It further observed that the High Court had not used its discretion judiciously since the respondents did not give a satisfactory or sufficient explanation for the delay."We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from March 15, 2017 till the second appeal was preferred in the year 2021. 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 January 1, 2017 to March 15, 2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after March 15, 2017. Thus, the period of delay from March 15, 2017 till the second appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously," the apex court held.In this regard, the Court also adverted to various judgments including Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd,. PK Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. and Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project."In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil, it is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights," the judgment said.It, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment..[Read Judgment]

Andhra Pradesh High Court order condoning delay of 1,011 days set aside by Supreme Court

Related Stories