Konda Chinnapareddy Janardhana ... vs Mayakuntla Krishnappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 6951 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                      I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
                               IN/AND
                  SECOND APPEAL No.237 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

The above second appeal is filed by legal heirs of the

plaintiff in O.S.No.104 of 2002. Sole plaintiff Konda

Chinnapareddy Janardhana Reddy filed suit O.S.No.104 of

2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle against

the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of

sale and to direct the 1st defendant to execute the registered

sale deed.

2. Suit was dismissed on contest vide judgment and decree

dated 26.06.2014. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,

sole plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.34 of 2014 on the file of II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. Lower appellate Court

vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016, dismissed the

appeal.

3. After dismissal of the appeal, sole appellant Konda

Chinnapareddy Janardhana Reddy died on 27.03.2017 leaving

behind him the other appellants as his legal heirs. Legal heirs

filed the above second appeal with a delay of 1374 days. Along

with second appeal, they filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 to condone the

delay of 1374 days in filing the second appeal and filed I.A.No.2

of 2020 to grant leave to file appeal.

4. Wife of deceased deposed to the affidavit filed in support

of the petition to condone the delay of 1374 days. Along with

the affidavit, discharge summary of deceased appellant was

filed. The appeal on merits was dismissed on 11.03.2016. The

application to get the certified copy of judgment was made on

05.09.2020 and copy was made ready on 07.09.2020. The

above second appeal was presented through Online on

21.08.2020 vide Case Number AP/2/SA/14054/21.08.2020.

Even before obtaining certified copy of appeal judgment, the

above second appeal was presented before this Court on

21.08.2020 by paying Court fee. The second appeal was

returned on 25.08.2020 and later objections were complied with

on 07.10.2020. Along with second appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2020 was

filed to condone the delay of 1374 days. In the affidavit filed in

support of the said petition in Paragraph-2, it was stated thus:

"I respectfully submit that due to illness I did not contact my advocate within the stipulated time and a delay of 1374

days caused. The delay caused is neither willful nor intentional due to the above mentioned reasons".

Later better affidavit was filed seeking to condone the

delay in filing the appeal. Paragraph-8, wherein the delay is

explained is extracted:

"8. I submit that my husband used to look after the legal proceedings of this case and we were not aware of the same. I submit that my husband had a brain stroke on 15th August 2012 resulting in partial paralysis of his right hand and leg and loss of speech. He was not able to communicate due to his loss of speech. He slowly made a partial recovery after a year and could only speak partially. We also found that my husband had signs of dementia and would forget names and things frequently. My husband suffered a heart attack on 24th February 2017. Even during this event he was only signaling loss of breath but not paid in his chest. We immediately took him to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a massive heart attack. Subsequently, he was treated for kidney failure and severe hypertension after which he passed away on 27th March 2017. After the death of my husband the defendant tried to interfere and take possession of the said property when our people objected. They tried to intimidate us and said that the case was dismissed in their favour. We got to know about this case matter and searched and traced out the case papers in our house and thereafter when we approached my husband's counsel, who appeared on his behalf, he instructed us to file an appeal before this Court."

5. A perusal of both the affidavits do not indicate proper

reasons to condone the delay of 1374 days in filing the second

appeal. In the affidavit filing along with I.A.No.1 of 2020, at the

first instance, except stating that the deponent suffered with

illness, nothing was indicated. Later, in the better affidavit, it

was averred that deceased suffered brain stroke in October,

2012, resulting in partial paralysis of his right hand and leg and

loss of speech and after one year of partial recovery, he could

only speak partially. It is pertinent to mention here that suit

filed by deceased appellant was dismissed on 26.06.2014 i.e.

after alleged brain stroke and thereafter the deceased appellant

filed appeal A.S.No.34 of 2014 on 01.08.2014. Thus, the

contention of deponent, if it is accepted regarding illness of her

husband, while filing appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2014, the family

members of deceased appellant would have assisted him in

filing the appeal. That itself shows that deponent or other

appellants who are legal heirs of deceased appellant made false

statement on oath. Persons coming to the Court by making false

statement are not entitled to discretionary or equitable relief.

The other reasons explained in the affidavit is that after death of

sole appellant in appeal, defendant tried to interfere and take

possession of the said property, but no date was mentioned as

to when the incident took place. The application to get the

certified copy of judgment in appeal was made on 05.09.2020

nearly after 3½ years of pronouncement of judgment.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application

Nos.21 of 2022 and 29 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)

No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10.01.2022 suspended the

limitation in view of outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic from

15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and the directions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reads thus:

"The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings."

7. While considering the application for condonation of delay,

the Court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is

few days and that reasons assigned are valid and cogent. Party

seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay

properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

8. In N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy1 the Hon'ble

Apex Court held thus:

"9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncontainable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as

(1998) 7 SCC 123

sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in regional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court.

10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice.

11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.

12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, MANU/SC/0335/1968 : [1969]1SCR1006 and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, MANU/SC/0534/1971: [1972] 2 SCR 874.

13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the

applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss."

9. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors.2

after referring to earlier case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

at paragraphs 24 and 25 as under;

"We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation.

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." (emphasis is mine)

10. In Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of

Brihan Mumbai3, the two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

(2010) 8 SCC 685

(2012) 5 SCC 157

"What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statues, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the costs.

What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay."

Eventually, the Bench upon perusal of the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit on record came to hold that certain necessary facts were conspicuously silent and, accordingly, reversed the decision of the High Court which had condoned the delay of more than seven years."

11. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of

Raghunathpur Nafar Academy4, the Hon'ble Apex Court

broadly culled out the following principles:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

(2013) 12 SCC 649

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. (emphasis is mine)

12. In Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi

and others5, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962 2 SCR 762] (supra), it is observed and held as under:--

2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260

In construing s.5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan, (1890) J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant."

18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [(1997) 7 SCC 556] (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is 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 is 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. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.

19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448] (supra), it is observed as under:--

"The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation

creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."

20. In the case of Basawaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed 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 the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature."

13. A conspectus of above the judgments referred to supra,

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that length of delay is no

matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. It

was further held that the primary function of a Court is to

adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance

substantial justice. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy

the rights of parties and they are meant to see that parties do

not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.

Hon'ble Apex Court also cautioned that if the delay is

occasioned by party deliberately to gain time then the Court

should lean against acceptance of the explanation. The

explanation should not be fanciful and concocted. The Courts

while dealing with an application to condone delay should keep

in mind the right accrued to other side and should deal with

such application with utmost care.

14. As pointed out supra, the affidavit filed in support of the

petition to condone delay neither show sufficient cause nor

valid reasons to condone inordinate delay. Apart from that

when the judgment in appeal was pronounced on 11.03.2016,

making application to get certified copy on 05.09.2020, shows

that appellants are not diligent enough in prosecuting the

appeal. Even according to deponent husband suffered brain

stroke in the year 2012. However, first appeal was filed by

deceased in the year 2014. Unless either the deponent or other

legal representatives supported filing of the appeal, (in view of

condition of deceased appellant as per the averment in the

affidavit) appeal would not have filed. Thus, the contention that

they are not aware of litigation is not only invented but also

false statement made on oath. Persons approached the Court

with false statement are not entitled to discretionary relief.

Since the appellants failed to assign any valid reason much less

proper reason, this Court does not find any ground to condone

such inordinate delay of 1374 days in filing the second appeal.

Hence, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed. I.A.No.2 of 2020 leave

petition is also dismissed.

15. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 14th September, 2022

PVD