1996 JTR(SC) 1106
1996 AIR(SC) 2750 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3445 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 200 ; 1996 3 CLT(SC) 215 ; 1996 2 CurCC(SC) 232 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 200 ; 1996 DNJ 401 ; 1996 2 GLH 667 ; 1996 7 JT 204 ; 1996 2 KLT 582 ; 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 583 ; 1996 5 Scale 548 ; 1996 10 SCC 634 ; 1996 Supp3 SCR 848 ; 1996 KHC 363 ; 1996 5 Supreme 774
1996(5) Supreme 774
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala -Appellant
versus
K.V. Ayisumma -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1993
Decided on 23-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.T. George, Advocate.
For the Respondent : B.V. Deepak, Dilip Pillai and G. Prakash, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government the approach of the Court should be to condone the delay without insisting upon explaining every day s delay.
Act Referred :LIMITATION ACT : S.5
A) Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the present case, governing the admissibility of the appeal by special leave filed after the prescribed period. The provision contemplates explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and while it does not differentiate between the State and a citizen, a pragmatic approach is mandated where the delay is caused at the behest of the Government, to avoid miscarriage of public justice and public mischief through skilled management of delay.
B) The key legal principles are that delay condoned at the behest of the Government does not require strict proof of day-to-day lapses, the Court must adopt a pragmatic rather than a pendandic approach, and the order of a subordinate court condoning delay in filing a review application cannot be set aside by the High Court on appeal.
Facts of the case:
An appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of Kerala setting aside an order of the Subordinate Judge who had condoned delay in filing a review petition to the Subordinate Judge following an enhancement of compensation by a reference Court for land acquired for a public purpose. The appellant had filed the review application after the prescribed period.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order, as the delay was rightly condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the circumstances.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Subordinate Judges order condoning delay in filing the review application.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where delay is caused at the behest of the Government and strict proof of daily delay would lead to public mischief, the Court must adopt a pragmatic approach and condone the delay without insisting on an explanation of every days delay.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the reference Court for disposal of the review petition.
A) Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the present case, governing the admissibility of the appeal by special leave filed after the prescribed period. The provision contemplates explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and while it does not differentiate between the State and a citizen, a pragmatic approach is mandated where the delay is caused at the behest of the Government, to avoid miscarriage of public justice and public mischief through skilled management of delay.
B) The key legal principles are that delay condoned at the behest of the Government does not require strict proof of day-to-day lapses, the Court must adopt a pragmatic rather than a pendandic approach, and the order of a subordinate court condoning delay in filing a review application cannot be set aside by the High Court on appeal.
Facts of the case:
An appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of Kerala setting aside an order of the Subordinate Judge who had condoned delay in filing a review petition to the Subordinate Judge following an enhancement of compensation by a reference Court for land acquired for a public purpose. The appellant had filed the review application after the prescribed period.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order, as the delay was rightly condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the circumstances.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Subordinate Judges order condoning delay in filing the review application.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where delay is caused at the behest of the Government and strict proof of daily delay would lead to public mischief, the Court must adopt a pragmatic approach and condone the delay without insisting on an explanation of every days delay.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the reference Court for disposal of the review petition.
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Kerala dated July 27, 1992 made in CRP No. 695/92. The admitted facts are that in an acquisition of the land for public purpose, the reference Court by its award and decree dated March 31, 1989 had enhanced the compensation. The appellant had filed an application on July 29, 1991 to review the award and decree. There was a delay in filing the application. The learned Subordinate Judge had condoned the delay. Against the said order of condoning the delay, the respondent had gone in revision to the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.
2. It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pendandic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day s delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remitted to the reference Court for disposal of the review petition in accordance with law. No costs.
Appeal accordingly allowed.
*******