The Court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party for condonation of delay and cannot allow it as a matter of generosity: Supreme Court
Case title: Union of India & Anr. Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy
Case no.: S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019
Decision on: April 3rd, 2024
Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Facts of the case
The suit property situated at Staveley Road, Pune was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants (Centre) in 1951. The appellants however, breached the terms of the lease deed, which led to the institution of civil suit by the respondents. The Court ruled in favour of the respondents allowing them to recover the possession of their suit property & arrears towards the rent. Subsequently, the plea challenging the judgement was dismissed by the Appellant Court.
The appellants contested the same before the High Court of Bombay invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. In 2019, the appellants through a Civil Application sought for restoration of the said petition and prayed for condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in preferring such restoration application. However, a Single Judge Bench of this Court through an impugned order declined the plea. Consequently, it was presented the Apex Court
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
The Counsel for the State submitted that the appellants were entitled to the condonation of 12 years and 158 days delay in accordance with the merits of the case. In light of the fact, that that the suit property being under the ownership of the Union of India and the same held by the respondent on old grant lease, he emphasized that it shall not permit the respondent in his capacity as a private party to deprive the Government of its land after having admitting that the super structure alone belongs to him and not the land.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
The Counsel submitted that the High Court was correct in passing the impugned order and contended that there was no sufficient ground to grant condonation for such a long and inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. Thereby, he contended that there is no merit in entertaining the present plea.
Issue – Whether the High Court has committed erred in passing the impugned order and are the appellants entitled to condonation for the delay in filing the restoration application?
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court on perusal of the materials on record highlighted the suggestion given by this Court to the appellants. It stated that if the possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent, then the Court might consider the restoration of the petition, despite of a long and inordinate delay. But however, non-compliance on the same led to the dismissal of appellants’ plea. It noted that the fact whether the litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India is irrelevant when condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. The Court asserted that while considering the plea for condonation of delay it must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Further, it stated that only if there sufficient cause established by the litigant and is equally balanced between the parties the court might proceed with the merits of the matter.
It noted that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration and should be based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity thus, cannot be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. The Court further, referring to various authorities noted that the High Court has not erred in passing the impugned judgement. It held that the appellants have failed to satisfy the vital test for condoning the delay and hence, stated that the same cannot be allowed as a matter of generosity. Accordingly, it dismissed the instant appeals. The Court through the Judgment has laid down a clear cut legal framework on allowing for condonation of delay and reiterated the settled law of bonfide explanation in seeking the same.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K