Professional Documents
Culture Documents
on 8 July, 2010
Versus
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
and Haryana at Chandigarh vide its Judgment dated 21 st May, 2003 set aside the concurrent Judgment passed
by the Appellate
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act'). The petition had
landlord and tenant and even claimed title to the said property on
taken for ejectment of the tenant in the eviction petition was non-
payment of rent which was only Rs. 200/- per month. As already
the High Court vide its judgment dated 21st May, 2003 and it is this
Special Leave Petition before this Court. The leave to appeal was
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/473980/ 1
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors. on 8 July, 2010
the sole petitioner died. From the record, it appears that no steps
Somewhere on 15th April, 2010, I.A. No. 1 of 2010 has been filed
evident from the above narrated facts, the appellant died on 28th
or about 15th April, 2010. Thus, there is delay of 778 days in filing
shown for condoning the delay of more than two years and the
4. At the very outset, we may notice that the delay in filing the
disputed that the onus to show that sufficient cause exists for
applicant has filed a one page application stating that they were
not aware of the pendency of the appeal before the Court and
came to know, only in March, 2010 from their counsel that the
case would be listed for final disposal during the vacations in May,
"That the LRs. of the applicants are residing on different addresses because the LRs. of the appellant/deceased
are in service and they were not aware of the pendency of any appeal before this Hon'ble Court. However,
when the letter from the counsel for Sh.
Ambala that the appeal is being listed for final hearing during vacation in the month of May, 2010 then these
LRs. came to know about the pendency of the appeal. Thereafter these
LRs. contacted the counsel in the month of March, 2010 to find out the position of the case. When they
contacted the counsel at
New Delhi these LRs. the counsel was told about the death of Sh. Balwant Singh which had taken place in
November, 2007. It was further pointed out to the counsel that the LRs. were not aware about the pendency of
the appeal in this Court or about the
requirement of law to bring the LRs. on record after the death of Balwant Singh. It is now they have come to
know that the LRs. of
Balwant Singh are required to be brought on record otherwise the appeal would abate."
this, they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The
correct facts and not state lies before the Court. Approaching the
9050/5, Naya Bas, Ambala City, (Haryana) and that there are no
No. 2 of 2010, it has been stated that the LRs. of the deceased
were in service and were not aware of the pendency of the appeal,
implying that they were living at different places and the letter of
for the Court to believe that the person who has been examined
as a witness did not even take steps to find out the proceedings
pending before the highest Court of the land. Even the letter,
alleged to have been written by the counsel, has not been placed
appeal was to be listed for hearing in the month of May, and still,
till 15th April, 2010, no steps were taken to file the application. The
of the sole deceased, appellant clearly shows that they have acted
with callousness, irresponsibly and have not even stated true facts
any steps whatsoever till 15th April, 2010 to inform their counsel
representatives on record.
argued that this Court should take a liberal view and should
condone the delay, irrespective of the above facts and in all these
the appeal has abated and no cause, much less sufficient, has
a party, where the right to sue does not survive, the suit shall
abate and come to an end. In the event the right to sue survives,
prescribes that where the plaintiff dies and the right to sue has
the time specified (90 days). Once the proceedings have abated,
for setting aside the abatement has to be treated at par and the
application filed under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC for bringing the legal
Court was not to invoke its inherent powers under Section 151,
10
"8. There is no question of construing the expression `sufficient cause' liberally either because the party in
default is the Government or because the question arises in connection with the impleading of the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent. The provisions of the Code are with a view to advance the cause
of justice. Of course, the Court, in considering whether the appellant has established sufficient cause for his
not continuing the suit in time or for not applying for the setting aside of the abatement within time, need not
be over-strict in expecting such proof of the suggested cause as it would
accept for holding certain fact established, both because the question does not relate to the merits of the
dispute between the parties and because if the abatement is set aside, the merits of the dispute can be
determined while, if the abatement is not set aside, the appellant is deprived of his proving his claim on
account of his culpable negligence or lack of vigilance. This, however, does not mean that the Court should
readily accept whatever the appellant alleges to explain away his default. It has to scrutinize it and would be
fully justified in considering the merits of the evidence led to establish the cause for the appellant's default in
applying within time for the impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased or for setting aside the
abatement.
10....The procedure, requires an application for the making of the legal representatives of
11
the deceased plaintiff or defendant a party to the suit. It does not say who is to present the application.
Ordinarily it would be the plaintiff as by the abatement of the suit the defendant stands to gain. However, an
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/473980/ 8
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors. on 8 July, 2010
application is necessary to be made for the purpose. If no such application is made within the time
allowed by law, the suit abates so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned or as against the deceased
defendant. The effect of such an abatement on the suit of the surviving plaintiffs or the suit against the
surviving defendants depends on other considerations as held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram,
[AIR 1962 SC 89 and Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh Singh, C.A. No. 344 of
question does not arise in this case as the sole respondent had died.
12....The legislature further seems to have taken into account that there may be cases where the plaintiff may
not know of the death of the defendant as ordinarily expected and, therefore, not only provided a further
period of two months under Art. 171 for an application to set aside the abatement of the suit, but also made
the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to such applications. Thus the plaintiff is allowed
sufficient time to make an application to set aside the
abatement which, if exceeding five months, be considered justified by the Court in the proved circumstances
of the case. It would be futile to lay down precisely as to what considerations would constitute `sufficient
cause' for setting aside the abatement or for the plaintiff's not applying to bring the legal
12
representatives of the deceased defendant on the record or would be held to be sufficient cause for not making
an application to set aside the abatement within the time
prescribed. But it can be said that the delay in the making of such applications should not be for reasons which
indicate the plaintiff's negligence in not taking certain steps which he could have and should have taken. What
would be such necessary steps would again depend on the circumstances of a particular case and each case
will have to be decided by the court on the facts and circumstances of the case. Any statement of illustrative
circumstances or facts can tend to be a curb on the free exercise of its mind by the Court in determining
whether the facts and circumstances of a particular case amount to `sufficient cause' or not. Courts have to use
their discretion in the matter soundly in the interests of justice."
[(1997) 7 SCC 556] where there was delay of 565 days in filing the
first appeal by the State, and the High Court had observed, "taking
allow the petition". While setting aside this order, this Court found
13
"3. It would be noticed from a perusal of the impugned order that the court has not recorded any satisfaction
that the explanation for delay was either reasonable or
application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of delay, the thrust in explaining the delay after
12.5.1995 is:
".....at that time the Advocate General's office was fed up with so many arbitration matters (sic) equally
important to this case were pending for consideration as per the
2.9.1995."
reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the
application seeking condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it is asserted that after the
judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned Sub-Judge, Kollam on 30-10-1993,
examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Law Secretary and the Advocate General
and in accordance with
their opinion, it was decided that there was no scope for filing the appeal but later on, despite the opinion
referred to above, the appeal was filed as late as on 18.1.1996
without disclosing why it was being filed. The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed
by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied
that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any
14
6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the
statute so prescribed and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the
delay cannot be sustained.
impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court
would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs."
15
"8. Inasmuch as the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of
abatement has to be
construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside an abatement and the dismissal consequent
upon an abatement,
have to be considered liberally. A simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without
specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in
setting aside the abatement. So also a prayer for setting aside abatement as regards one of the plaintiffs can be
construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety. Abatement of suit for failure to
move an application for bringing the legal
prescribed period of limitation is automatic and specific order dismissing the suit as abated is not called for.
Once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order
dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other
applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the
setting aside of an abatement. A prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record, if allowed, would
have the effect of setting aside the abatement as the relief of setting aside abatement though not asked for in so
many words is in effect being actually asked for and is necessarily implied. Too technical or pedantic an
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/473980/ 11
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors. on 8 July, 2010
16
setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal heirs of the
held as under:
"11. The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be
understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words `sufficient cause' in Section 5 of Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of
any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."
17
the Court should adopt a very liberal approach and the delay
the case of Ram Sumiran (supra), the Court has not recorded any
discretion. The Court, being satisfied with the facts averred in the
and for setting aside the abatement. The Court held that the
18
Bench) in the case of Ram Charan (supra) were not brought to the
Lahoti (supra).
construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside
19
details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex-facie
20
Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94], this Court had taken a liberal approach
that was the case of fixation of seniority of 400 officers and the
"7. In construing Section 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
21
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. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad 269.
that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the
condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent
for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not
proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground
alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the
delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage
that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration;..."
(38) Excise Law Times 739 (SC)], this Court while granting some
22
held that there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause
for such delay and as there was no whisper to explain what legal
Co., [1999 (108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC)], the Supreme Court
Rule 9, CPC has been the subject matter of judicial scrutiny for
23
true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for.
the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach
24
where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant
25
besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its
power and control and had approached the Court without any
26
"13 (i) The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be
understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words `sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of
any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."
condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abatement,
than other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable right accrues to the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with
foreclosure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decided the matter
on merits. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decide the matter on merits, rather than terminate the
appeal on the
ground of abatement.
(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but
be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For
example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the
institution of an
27
appeal. The courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than
applications relating to litigant's lapses. The classic example is the difference in approach of courts to
applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in re-filing
the appeal after rectification of defects.
something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect
the appellant to be
diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a
few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the
position nor keep checking whether the contesting
respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal.
16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of
28
this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the
applications.
29
already held that the application does not contain correct and true
were taken during this period and why immediate steps were not
who had appeared as AW4 in the trial and was fully aware of the
proceedings, but still did not inform the counsel of the death of his
question.
30
........................................
J.
[ SWATANTER KUMAR ]
New Delhi
July 8, 2010.
31