BALWANT SINGH (DEAD) versus JAGDISH SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 597 
BALWANT SINGH (DEAD) 
v. 
JAGDISH SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006) 
JULY 08, 2010 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22, rules 3 and 
A 
B 
9; s. 151 read with s.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Death of 
appellant during pendency of appeal before Supreme Court C 
- Application filed after long delay of 778 days for bringing 
the legal representatives of deceased appellant on record 
accompanied by application for condonation of delay - Held: 
Such applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and 
even in a routine manner - They should be rejected unless 
D 
sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay- On facts, 
except for a vague averment that the legal representatives 
were not aware of the pendency of the appeal, no other 
fu.stifiable rf)ason was stated by the applicants -
The 
~pplication's also a~d not contain correct and true facts, thus, 
want of,15ona fides is imputable to the applicants - No reason 
E 
nor suffiCient cause was shown as to why immediate steps 
were not taken.., by. the applicants, even after they admittedly 
came to know ·af the pendency of the appeal - The conduct 
of the applicants was abnormal -
They acted irresponsibly 
and even with negligence, and miserably failed in ~hawing any 
'sufficient cause' for condonation of the long delay of 778 days 
- Applications accordingly dismissed - Resultantly, the 
appeal, having already abated, also dismissed. 
F 
Limitation - The law of limitation is a substantive law and 
G 
has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a 
party-: Once a valuable right is accrued in favour of one party 
as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay 
).. 
. 
-
, 
by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be 
. 
597 
H 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A un<easonable to take away that right on the mere asking of 
the applicant, particularly, when the delay is directly a result 
of negligence, default or inaction of that party. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
B 
Liberal construction - Purpose of - Held: The purpose 
c 
D 
of liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of 
'reasonableness' as it is understood in its general connotation 
- However, liberal construction -:;annot be equated with doing 
injustice to the other party. 
Purposive construction - Held: No provision can be 
treated to have been enacted purposelessly -
The Court 
should not give such an interpretation to a provision which 
would render it ineffective or otiose. 
Words and Phrases - "Sufficient cause" (for not filing an 
application within the prescribed period of limitation) -
Meaning of - Discussed. 
· The landlord-appellant filed a petition for ejectment 
E of the tenant-respondent on the ground of non-payment 
of rent. The petition was allowed by the Rent controller 
under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Rent (Control of 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The order was affirmed by 
the Appellate Authority. The High Court, however, set 
F aside the concurrent judgments of the Appellate 
Authority and the Rent Controller. 
During the pendency of the appeal before the 
Supreme Court, the landlord-appellant died on 28th 
November, 2007. 
On 15th April, 2010, the legal 
G representatives of the deceased landlord filed an 
application for bringing them on record (I.A. No. 1 of 2010) 
alongwith an application for condonation of the long 
delay in filing such application (I.A. No. 2 of 2010) pleading 
that I. A. No. 1 of 2010 be treated as an application under 
H 
BALWANT SINGH (DEAD) v. JAGDISH SINGH & 
599 
ORS. 
Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151, of CPC while I. A. 
A 
No. 2 of 2010 be treated as an application under Order 
22 Rule 9 CPC read with Sectio.n 5 of the Limitation Act, 
1963. It was submitted by the applicants that they were 
not aware of the pendency of the appeal before the Court 
and came to know of the same only in March, 2010 from 
B 
their counsel. 
Dismissing the applications and, consequently, the 
appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The delay in filing the application I.A. No. 
C 
1 of 2010 is considerable and it cannot be disputed that 
the onus to show that sufficient cause exists for 
condonation of delay lies upon the applic·ant. It is 
obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause 
due to which he was prevented from continuing to 
D 
prosecute the proceedings in the suit or before the 
higher Court. From a 

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