Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs B.Gnanasekaran on 11 March, 2022
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.03.2022
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.107071 of 2021
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009. ...Appellant
Vs.
B.Gnanasekaran,
Vocational Instructor (Agriculture)
Government Higher Secondary School,
Malaikoviloor,
Karur District. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 1503 days in filing the above
writ appeal against the order dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.8690 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Mythreya Chandru
Special Government Pleader (Education)
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of
1503 days in filing the above writ appeal against the order dated 14.09.2017
made in W.P.No.8690 of 2016.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner submitted
that after receiving the order copy on 09.01.2018, earlier it was decided to file a
review petition. In view of the dismissal of similar kind of review petition filed
against the connected writ petition, it was decided to file writ appeal. It is
further submitted that the staff of the petitioner's office were deputed for public
examination duty and for paper correction and in the third week of July, 2019,
appeal papers were sent to the Special Government Pleader, who sought for few
more particulars from the subordinate offices where the respondent was
working. Again, the staff of the petitioner's office were deputed to the public
examination duty and also in view of the lockdown ordered by the Government
due to Covid - 19 pandemic and the legislative assembly elections conducted in
the State, the petitioner could not pursue the appeal and there has occasioned a
delay in filing the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
delay of 1503 days in filing the writ appeal and no sufficient reasons have been
adduced in support of condonation of delay and therefore this CMP is liable to
be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. On reading of the affidavit, we find that no prima facie case is made
out to condone the delay, as the reasons adduced for the delay are not
acceptable.
6. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if there is
any justifiable ground, the delay has to be condoned. Assuming that, the delay
is very small and the reasons are not germane, the Court cannot condone the
same. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court (SVNJ & MVJ),
by an order dated 15.02.2018, in the case of M/s.Ruskim Sea Foods Limited
vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in MANU/TN/0876/2018,
which were filed to condone the delay of 765 days in preferring the Appeal,
dismissed the said Petitions. Relevant Paragraph of the said decision is
extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
“32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of discretion to
be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is true that the length and
breadth of delay is not relevant, but the acceptance of explanation can only be
a relevant criterion for the concerned Court to deal with / condone the aspect
of 'Condonation of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner / concerned
litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or project sufficient cause or
good cause to condone the delay with a view to enable the Concerned Court to
take a liberal view with a view to secure the ends of justice.
7. While dealing with yet another similar issue of condoning a huge delay,
a Division Bench of this Court, has observed as follows:
“4. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of
Petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating
to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into
consideration as the fundamental principle is that 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.
There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious
matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the
initial stage itself.
5 . Considering the above aspects and further the Affidavit filed for
condoning the delay, did not contain any details as to how the delay of 1860
days had occurred and that no plausible and proper explanation was
assigned for each and every day's delay, we are of the view that it is a fit
case where the discretion cannot be exercised for condonation of the delay.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of 1860 days
delay in preferring the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal
also stands dismissed.”
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1269/2021, has held as follows:
“7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
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.” 7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (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. 7.5 In the case
of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the
court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of
equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant
and “do not slumber over their rights”.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in
the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such
no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had
been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – appellants before the
High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the
Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its
discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised
the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while
condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High
Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the
appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
facts.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal is Allowed. 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 is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the ground of delay.
The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs."
9. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
11.03.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking (or) Non-speaking Order
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.107071 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dpq
CMP.No.2891 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.107071 of 2021
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
