AJAY DABRA versus PYARE RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 31-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
449
AJAY DABRA
v.
PYARE RAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 716 of 2023)
JANUARY 31, 2023
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 – Delay in filing appeal –
Condonation of – Held: An appeal has to be filed within the
stipulated period, prescribed under the law – Belated appeals can
only be condoned when sufficient reason is shown before the court
for delay – In the present case, the delay has not been explained to
the satisfaction of the court – The only reason assigned by the
appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the first appeal was
that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee – This
was not found to be a sufficient reason for the condonation of delay
as the appellant was an affluent businessman and a hotelier – Even
it is presumed that the appellant was short of funds and was not
able to pay court fee, nothing barred him from filing the appeal as
there is provision for filing a defective appeal, i.e., an appeal which
is deficient as far as court fee is concerned, provided the court fee
is paid within the time given by the Court – Though s.4 of Court
Fees Act states that an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court
without court fee, s.149 CPC, which gives power to court to allow
the person to pay the court fees at later stage, acts as an exception
or even a proviso to s.4 of Court Fees Act – The reasons assigned
for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid reason for
condonation of the delay, since the appellant could have filed the
appeal deficient in court fee under the provisions of law – Hence,
High Court was right in dismissing s.5 application of the appellant
– No case for interference made out – Court Fees Act, 1870.
Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972:
s.118 – Transfer of land to non-agriculturist – U/s.118 of 1972 Act,
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 449
449
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
only an agriculturist, can purchase land in Himachal Pradesh,
which would mean a landowner who personally cultivates his land
in Himachal Pradesh – If a non-agriculturist has to purchase a
land, prior permission of state government is required – The whole
purpose of s.118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with
small holdings – Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred
to a non-agriculturist – The purpose is to save the small agricultural
holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion
of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated
period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be
condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for
the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore
must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should
not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and
explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but
the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for
the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained
to the satisfaction of the court. The only reason assigned by the
appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the First Appeal was
that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee! This
was not found to be a sufficient reason for the condonation of
delay as the appellant was an affluent businessman and a hotelier.
In any case, even it is presumed for the sake of argument that
the appellant was short of funds, at the relevant point of time and
was not able to pay court fee, nothing barred him from filing the
appeal as there is provision under the law for filing a defective
appeal, i.e., an appeal which is deficient as far as court fee is
concerned, provided the court fee is paid within the time given
by the Court. In terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed
before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed.
But this provision has to be read along with Section 149 of CPC.
[Para 5][453-F-H; 454-A-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
2. In present case, appellant is capable of purchasing the
court fee. He did pay the court fee ultimately, though belatedly.
But then, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the
reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be a
valid reason for condonation of the delay, since the appellant could
have filed the appeal deficient in court fee under the provisions
of law. Therefo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.