The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India refused to condone a delay of 12 years and 158 days since the Union of India could not prove reasonable diligence in prosecuting the matter but sought the matter to be heard for the sake of ‘very good case on merits’.
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala remarked that “We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.” The Court also importantly clarified that the litigant being a private party or a State or Union of India did not matter much when it came to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years.
Brief Facts
The suit property was leased by respondent in favour of appellants on 9.03.1951. On breach of terms of the lease deed by the appellants, the respondent instituted a civil suit for recovery of possession of suit property and arrears towards rent which was allowed holding them entitled to possession of the suit property as per final decree dated 2.05.1987. The said decision was challenged before the District Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.1992. In fact, the challenge before Bombay High Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India but the same was dismissed on 10.10.2006 for non-prosecution.
The instant appeal challenges order passed by the Bombay High Court on 9.07.2019 declining to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing an application seeking restoration of a writ petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution through order dated 10.10.2006.
Contentions of the Appellants
The Attorney General representing the Union of India assured of having a very good case on merits due to which, the delay of 12 years and 158 days deserved to be condoned. It was submitted that the suit property was situated under the ownership of Union of India which was held by the respondent on old grant of lease who in his capacity as a private party should not be allowed to deprive the Government of its land after admission of only super structure belonging to him while the land belongs to the Government.
There was no explanation regarding the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application before the High Court.
Observations of the Court
The Court hinted towards the High Court’s reasonable suggestion when it expressed that if the defendants were willing to handover the possession of suit property to the respondents, the Court may consider restoration of petition, while the unwillingness was conveyed and the Court stated that no case was made out for condoning the delay. The Court explained that the same suggestion by the Supreme Court which again brought the same results of denial against handing over the possession of suit property.
Therefore, the Court sought to be convinced with sufficient cause for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. The Court remarked that “It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned.”
The Court explained that the matter started in 1981 and 43 years had passed while the respondent remained unable to reap the fruits of his decree. The Court cautioned of mockery of justice if the delay of 12 years and 158 days was condoned requiring the respondent to undergo rigmarole of legal proceedings. The Court observed that “The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter.”
The Court sought for sufficient cause assigned by the litigant, opposition being equally balanced, after which the Court may bring in the aid of merits of the case for condoning the delay. The Court remarked that “We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.”
The Court cited a catena of cases including Oriental Aroma Chemical Indus.Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Indisl. Devt. Corp.& ANR., 2010 Latest Caselaw 164 SC and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 2012 Latest Caselaw 137 SC.
Decision of the Court
The Court concluded in support of the High Court’s decision, which was also exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court hinted at the appellants’ failure to prove their reasonable diligence in prosecuting the matter, a vital test for condonation of delay which was not satisfied in the instant matter. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and accordingly disposed of the pending application.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR
Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice JB Pardiwala
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. R. Venkataramani, AG; Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG; Mr. Abhishek Panday, Adv.; Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Charushila Sawant, Adv.; Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv; Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR; Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv.; Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Shah, Adv.
Tags: Supreme Court, Condonation of delay, condonation of delay application
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
