EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT versus G. ARUMUGAM (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 19-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 152 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT 
v. 
G. ARUMUGAM (D) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8577 of 2014) 
JANUARY 19, 2015. 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Appeal: Delay in filing - Condonation of - Delay of 1373 
days in filing appeal - Suit for declaration and possession of 
C the suit land filed by first respondent - Trial court dismissed 
the suit - First respondent filed appeal which was allowed -
No steps taken by appellant thereafter - After 4 years, 
appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and 
decree -
Thereafter, second appeal filed alongwith the 
o application for condonation of delay - High Court declined 
to condone the delay - On appeal, held: Delay, howsoever 
huge may be condoned if there is an attempt on part of 
government officials or public servants to defeat justice by 
causing delay. 
E 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. The delay occasioned only on account of 
the deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive Officer 
F of the Panchayat at the relevant time. If the court is 
convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of 
the government officials or public servants to defeat 
justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger 
public interest, should take a lenient view in such 
G situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be· 
the delay, and have the matter decided on merits. The 
delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal is 
condoned. [Paras 3, 4 and 5] (154-E-F, G-H; 155-A] 
H 
152 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT 153 
; 
v. G. ARUMUGAM (0) BY LRS. 
State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 
-A 
752: 2005 (3) SCR 108 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2005 (3) SCR 108 
relied on 
Para 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
8577 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.04.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.P. No. 4874 of 2006 in 
B 
c 
S.A. SR No. 876 of 2006. 
WITH 
I.A. No. 2 of 2014 
R. Nedumaran for the Appellant. 
V.N. Subramaniam, Revathy Raghavan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
KURIAN, J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned 
order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay 
D 
E 
of 1373 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 
14.11.2000 in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the 
Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The 
F 
first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 267of1992 on the file of 
the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Tamil Nadu for 
declaration and possession of the suit land. The Gram 
Panchayat, defendant in the suit, contended that the suit land 
is Natham Poramboke and the possession and records of title 
G 
are in the name of the Panchayat. The trial court dismissed the 
suit by judgment dated 11.07.1997. The complainant-first 
respondent herein filed first appeal as A.S. No. 108 of 1999. 
The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed by judgment 
dated 14.11.2000. 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2. It appears, no steps were taken by the Executive Officer 
of the Panchayat at the relevant time. When the Executive 
Officer, at the time of filing the second appeal, came to know 
of the proceedings when steps for eviction were taken in 
execution, he immediately took steps and filed an application 
B on 26.10.2004 for certified copy of the judgment and decree. 
The same were issued on 15.12.2004, and after obtaining the 
necessary sanction and on completing the other procedural 
formalities, the ~econd appeal was filed on 05.01.2005 along 
with application for condonation of delay. By the impugned 
c order, the High Court declined to condone the delay. According 
to the High Court, the delay is not properly explained. It is also 
observed in the impugned order that though the certified copies 
were issued on 15.12.2004, the second appeal is filed only on 
05.01.2005 and that there is no explanation even for that delay. 
D 
3. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant 
on 12.12.2006, it is broughtto the notice of this Court that Shri 
K. G. Ramasamy, who was working as Executive Officer of the 
Panchayat at the relevant time was suspended from service 
w.e.f. 12.07.2002 on allegations of corruption. Be that as it may, 
E after going through the records and after hearing the counsel 
on both sides, we are satisfied that the delay occasioned only 
on account o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.