LexAMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 2 S.C.R. 484 AMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2013) MARCH 22, 2013 [SURlNDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] DELA YILACHES: c Decree against State Government - Execution of - Objection u/s 47 - Rejected - Delay in filing revision - Held: In the application for condonation of delay, no sufficient cause ·· has been shown which may entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay - Merely because 0 the respondent is the State, delay in filing appeal ot revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered; and in absence of 'sufficient cause' delay shall not be condoned - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.47 - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5. E Delay - 'Sufficient cause' - Consideration of. In the execution case filed In 2009 to get the decree dated 7.8.1969 in a suit for declaratlon of title and permanent injunction, executed against the respondent- F State Government, the objection uls 47 CPC filed by respondent in the year 2010, was rejected by the executing court on .17.8.2010. Another objection u/s 47 CPC flied by the State on 15.9.2011 was also rejected. The respondent-State then filed a civil revision along with an G application for condonation of delay before the District Judge challenging the earlier order dated 17.8.2010. The delay In filing the revision was condoned. The High Court declined to Interfere. H 484 AMALENDU KUMAR BERA & ORS. v. STATE OF 485 WEST BENGAL Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1 Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of 'sufficient cause' delay shall not be condoned .. In the B instant case, admittedly, the earlier objection filed by the respondent-State u/s 47 CPC was dismissed on 17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the respondent after about one year filed another objection on 15.9.2011 u/s 47 which was also rejected by the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was C issued by the executing court that the respondent preferred civil revision against the first order dated 17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which may D entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. The expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of 'sufficient cause' for the explaining every day's delay. The delay in E official business requires its pedantic approach from public justice perspective. [para 9-1 OJ [490~F-G; 491-A-D; 492-B] Union of India vs. Nirpen Sharma AIR 2011 SC .1237 - F referred to. 1.2 True it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly, when the appellant is the State but in a case where there is serious laches and negligence on the part G of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection u/s 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. The delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A revision against the order refusing to entertain objection u/s 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court while deciding petition for condoning the delay. [para 10] [491-E-F; 492-A .. B] 8 1.4 There is no justification in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Consequently, petition for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition stands rejected. [para 11] [492-C-D] c D Case Law Reference: AIR 2011 SC 1237 referred to para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2012 of the High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 602 of 2012. Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, Soumen Kr. Dutta, B.P. E Yadav, Sarla Chandra for the Appellants. F Joydeep Mazumdar, Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.