LexH. DOHIL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. versus NAHAR EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2014] 8 S.C.R. 424 H. DOHIL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. v. NAHAR EXPORTS LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7886-7887 of 2014) AUGUST 20, 2014. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Delay!Laches: Delay in filing appeal - 9 days delay in filing Regular First Appeals and 1727 days delay in refiling the same - High Court condoning the delay and admitting the appeals subject to payment of cost to other side - Held: Law of limitation is D J;ased on sound public policy and therefore the principle that in the absence of bona fide reasons the applications for condonation of delay should be strictly construed· assumes significance - Courts are required to weigh the scale of' balance of justice in respect of both parties and this principle cannot be given a go-by under the guise of liberal approach E even if it pertains to refiling - In the case on hand, delay in refiling was 1727 days - It is bounden duty of respondents to have satisfactorily explained such a long delay in refiling - There was no convincing explanation as to how respondents were disabled from rectifying the defects pointed out by F Registry and refiling the appeal papers within time - As a matter of fact the appeal papers were filed without payment of any court fee - This only affirms the stand of appellant(s) that there was no bona fide in respondents' claim - There is, therefore, gross negligence and total lack of bona-tides in G respondents' approach and the impugned order of High Court in having condoned the delay in filing as well as refiling, of 9 days and 1727 days respectively, in a casual manner without giving any reason, much less acceptable reasons, cannot be H 424 H. DOHIL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. (P) LTD. v. NAHAR 425 EXPORTS LTD. sustained - Impugned order is set aside - Direction to admit A appeals of respondents is also set aside and the same shall stand dismissed - Principles to be applied while dealing with application for condonation of delay - Culled out - Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 144 - 0. 41, r. 3A - Maxim, vigilantibus non dormientibus ju(a subveniunt. B The instant appeals arose out of the order of the High Court condoning 9 days delay in filing Regular First Appeals and 1727 days delay in refiling those appeals. It was contended that when the appeals were presented without payment of court fee and there was 9 days delay C in filing the appeals, as per 0. 41 r. 3A, CPC, it was 1 mandatory to file an application for condoning the delay, which was not done by the respondents; and when the appeal papers were returned for complying with the defects, there was enormous delay of 1727 days in refiling D the same. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 149, CPC empowers the court to E accept the payment of court fee at a tater point of time if the appeal papers had been filed within the due date. Therefore, in the case on hand, when the appeals were presented with a delay of 9 days without payment of proper court fee and when the required court fee was duly paid at the time of refiling, it should be construed that such payment of court fee was deemed to have been paid on the date on which the appeals were originally presented by virtue of the implication of s.149, CPC. [para F 9] [435-B-C] G 1.2. This Court in Pradeep Kumar* has held that there is no such rule prescribing for rejection of memorandum of appeal in a case where the appeal is not accompanied by an application for condoning the delay. If the memorandum of appeal is filed without an accompanying H 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A application to condone the delay, the consequence cannot be fatal and if the appellant subsequently files an application to condone the delay before the appeal is rejected, the same should be taken up along with the B already filed memorandum of appeal. [para 11] [436-C-F] *State of MP. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 235 = (2000) 7 SCC 372 - relied on. 2.1. It is true that the delay in filing the appeals was only 9 days and that the longer delay was only relating C to the refiling of the appeal papers. But even if it is related to refiling of the appeals, the net result is that the appeals could be taken into records only when such a delay in refiling is condoned. Therefore, if the refiling had been made within the time granted by the Registry of the High D Court, no fault cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.