'No Explanation' : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Condoning Delay Of 1011 Days In Filing Second Appeal

While observing that the High Court has not exercised its discretion judiciously, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court's order condoning a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring a second appeal in a case where no sufficient or satisfactory explanation has been given.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna issued the direction in a civil appeal against order of High Court of Andhra Pradesh condoning a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by the present respondents.

While noting that no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by the party before the High Court, the Bench has observed that the High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay and has not exercised the discretion judiciously.

The Bench has observed that the High Court has erred in condoning delay and reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane.

While passing the impugned order, the High Court observed that there was no wilful negligence on the part of the party nor it suffered from want of due diligence. Further, if the delay was condoned no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party as the appeal would be heard on merits.

However, the Supreme Court has opined that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the party (herein respondents) in filing such a belated appeal.

The second appeal was filed against the order of the First Appellate Court dated 1st Feb 2017 allowing the suit by the present appellant and quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court.

The Bench has observed that there is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021.

Referring to the reason that the Respondent was suffering from health issues between January and March of 2017, the Bench observed that there is still no explanation for delay after 15th March 2017.

The Bench also took into consideration previous judgements of the Supreme Court of India in this regard.

The Bench noted that in the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was observed and held by the top Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.

Further, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, it was observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity.

The Bench also took into consideration its judgement in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr, where while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it was observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It was further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.

The Court has therefore allowed the present appeal and set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

Case Title: Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment