No Concession For Dilatory Tactics: Kerala High Court Refuses To Condone 10 Yrs Delay In Filing Appeal
The Kerala High Court recently refused to condone a delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by a Munsiff Court in a civil suit. Justice A. Badharudeen, refused the condonation of delay on taking note that no sufficient reasons had been adduced warranting the same. "It is true that 'sufficient cause' is the decisive factor while condoning the delay. Though...
The Kerala High Court recently refused to condone a delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by a Munsiff Court in a civil suit.
Justice A. Badharudeen, refused the condonation of delay on taking note that no sufficient reasons had been adduced warranting the same.
"It is true that 'sufficient cause' is the decisive factor while condoning the delay. Though it has been settled that liberal view should be taken while condoning delay, it is equally settled that when the delay sought to be condoned on account of any dilatory tactics without bonafides, with deliberate inaction or negligence, such a concession also is not possible," the Court observed.
The appellant herein had filed an application before the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, seeking condonation of delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against the decree and judgment in a civil suit, passed by the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. The 1st appellant averred that the delay had occurred due to his advanced age, and consequent age related ailments, and some serious mental health disorders including Psychosis, as a result of which he could not physically contact the counsel, and entrust the case filing appeal and proceed with the same.
The counsel for the respondent argued that the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the petition are insufficient to condone the long delay of more than ten years, and hence pleaded that the present plea ought to be dismissed.
The Sub Judge had dismissed the application, by placing reliance on the Apex Court decision in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2014), wherein it had been held that in a case that is presented to the Court beyond the limitation, the applicant would have to explain to the Court what the 'sufficient cause' was that prevented him from approaching the Court within the period of limitation.
The Court in this case perused Section 5 of the Limitation Act which provides for 'Extension of prescribed period in certain cases', and noted that 'sufficient cause' is the decisive factor for condoning the delay.
The Court observed that in the present case, the ailments of the appellant were not established by convincing evidence, apart from producing one original OP book and two OP tickets. It further took note that no doctors had also been examined to prove the infirmity of the petitioner for a long period of 10 years.
The Court added that although the appellant had averred that the appellants 2 to 4 had entrusted him with filing the appeal, the said version was not believable since the said persons had 'slept over their rights'.
"In the instant case, no sufficient reasons shown to condone the long delay of 3366 days. In view of the matter, it has to be held that the learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed the petition, seeking condonation of delay of 3366 days and the said order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court to put the plaintiff in trouble after ten years," the Court observed, while dismissing the Second Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates B. Premnath an Sarath M.S.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Gopikrishnan Nambiar M., K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, and Raja Kannan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
Case Title: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
Case Number: RSA NO. 643 OF 2022