Supreme Court of India
ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus GOPI CHAND ATREJA on 12 March 2019
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1000
AESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
GOPI CHAND ATREJA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5051-5052 of 2009)
BMARCH 12, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Limitation Act:
Cs.5 – Condonation of delay – Delay of 1942 days in filingsecond appeal – Application seeking condonation of delay rejectedby the High Court – Held: Delay was inordinate and not properlyexplained – Appellant-HUDA is a statutory authority created underthe Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and has well-established legal department to look after the legal cases in variousDCourts – Appellants were, therefore, fully aware of the adverse orderspassed in the first appeal against them – There was, therefore, nojustification on their part to keep quiet for such a long time and notto file the appeal within 90 days or/and re-file it immediately aftercuring the defects – If, according to the appellants-HUDA, theirElawyer did not take timely steps, which resulted in delay in its filing/refiling, then, it cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause within themeaning of s.5 of the Limitation Act – Delay rightly not condonedby the High Court – Delay/laches – Haryana Urban DevelopmentAuthority Act, 1977.
Dismissing the appeals, the CourtF
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellants had beencontesting the civil suit and the first appeal since inception. Theywere, therefore, fully aware of the adverse orders passed in thefirst appeal against them. There was, therefore, no justificationon their part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file theGappeal within 90 days or/and re-file it immediately after curingthe defects. It was the duty of the appellants (their legal managers)to see that the appeal be filed in time. If the appellants noticedthat their lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the brief in question, then they should have immediately engaged someother lawyer to ensure that the appeal be filed in time by anotherlawyer. [Paras 17, 19][1003-D-G]
2. It is a clear case where the appellant-HUDA,i.e., theirofficers, who were in-charge of the legal cell failed to dischargetheir duty assigned to them promptly and with due diligencedespite availability of all facilities and infrastructure. In suchcircumstances, the officers-in-charge of the case should be madeanswerable for the lapse on their part and make good the losssuffered by the appellants-HUDA. A delay of 1942 days (4 years6 months), is wholly inordinate and the cause pleaded for itscondonation is equally unexplained by the appellants. In any case,the explanation given does not constitute a sufficient cause withinthe meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was, therefore,rightly not condoned by the High Court. [Paras 20, 21][1003-G, H][1004-A, B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5051-5052 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2008 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second AppealNo. 4110 of 2007 & order dated 05.05.2008 in RAC No. 23-C of 2008 inRegular Second Appeal No. 4110 of 2007.
Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Advs.for the Appellants.
Gagan Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and ordersdated 23.01.2008 and 05.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab& Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4110 of 2007 and R.A.C. No.23-C of 2008 in R.S.A. No.4110 of 2007 respectively whereby the HighCourt dismissed the second appeal as well as the review applicationfiled by the appellants herein.
2. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from thefacts mentioned hereinbelow.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A3. The appellants herein is the Haryana Urban DevelopmentAuthority (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”). They are thedefendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out ofwhich these appeals arise.
4. The respondent filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.305 of 2000Bin the Court of Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Karnal against theappellants(HUDA) claiming a decree for declaration with consequentialrelief of permanent and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit land.The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on contest vide judgment/decreedated 01.05.2001.
C5. The appellants (defendants) felt aggrieved and filed first appealbeing Civil Appeal No.92 of 2001 in the Court of Additional DistrictJudge, Karnal. By judgment dated 07.02.2002, the first Appellate Courtdismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in theDHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Since the appeal filedby the appellant was barred by 1942 days, the appellants filed anapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed for condoningthe delay in filing the second appeal.
7. By impugned order dated 23.01.2008, the High Court rejectedEthe application and declined to condone the delay. The High Court heldthat the cause pleaded by the appellants for condoning the delay is not asufficient cause. As a consequence, the second appeal was alsodismissed as being barred by limitation.
8. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed a review petition.By order dated 05.02.2008, the High Court also dismissed the reviewFpetition.
9. Against the orders dated 23.01.2008 and 05.02.2008, theappellants(defendants) have filed these appeals by way of special leavein this Court.G10. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing theappellants’ second appeal on the ground of limitation.
11. In other words, the question arises for consideration in theseappeals is whether the High Court was justified in not condoning theHdelay of 1942 days in filing the second appeal by the appellants(defendants).
12. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellantsand Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals.
14. In our view, the delay of 1942 days in filing the second appealin the High Court was rightly not condoned by the High Court for thereasons mentioned below.
15. First, the delay was inordinate; Second it was not properlyexplained; and Third, the ground alleged in support of application filedunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not constitute a sufficient cause.
16. The appellant-HUDA is a statutory authority created underthe Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It has its well-established legal department to look after the legal cases filed by HUDAand against the HUDA in various Courts. They have panel of lawyers todefend their interest in Courts.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been contesting thecivil suit and the first appeal since inception. The appellants were,therefore, fully aware of the adverse orders passed in the first appealagainst them. There was, therefore, no justification on their part to keepquiet for such a long time and not to file the appeal within 90 days or/andre-file it immediately after curing the defects.
18. If, according to the appellants-HUDA, their lawyer did nottake timely steps, which resulted in causing delay in its filing/refiling,then, in our view, it cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause within themeaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
19. In our view, it was equally the duty of the appellants (theirlegal managers) to see that the appeal be filed in time. If the appellantsnoticed that their lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the briefin question, then they should have immediately engaged some otherlawyer to ensure that the appeal be filed in time by another lawyer.
20. In our view, it is a clear case where the appellant-HUDA,i.e.,their officers, who were in-charge of the legal cell failed to dischargetheir duty assigned to them promptly and with due diligence despiteavailability of all facilities and infrastructure. In such circumstances, theofficers-in-charge of the case should be made answerable for the lapseon their part and make good the loss suffered by the appellants-HUDA.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A21. A delay of 1942 days (4 years 6 months), in our view, is whollyinordinate and the cause pleaded for its condonation is equally unexplainedby the appellants. In any case, the explanation given does not constitutea sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.It was, therefore, rightly not condoned by the High Court and we concurBwith the finding of the High Court.
22. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H