LexIMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC. versus UJAGAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 7 S.C.R. 376 IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA ETC. v. UJAGAR .SINGH & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008) JUNE 9, 2010 [DEEPAK VERMA AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963: c s. 5 - Delay in filing objections under 0. 21 r.90 and, on rejection of objections, two and half months' delay in filing appeal against order of executing court - Appeal dismissed as barred by time - HELD: Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with Jaw rather 0 than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold - While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not - Each case has to be weighed from its facts E. and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves ~ It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the ccmduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned - In the instant case, the delay in filing the first appeal before the District Judge, for setting aside the sale has not been so huge as to warrant its dismissal on such F hypertechnical ground - In fact, the appellant had taken all possible steps to prosecute the matter within time - Had there been an intimation sent to the appellant by its erstwhile Advocate, and if even thereafter appellant had acted callously, then it could be understood that the appellant was G negligent, but that was not the case here - From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it hacJ been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter - No sooner the appellant came to know about the dismissal of its objections filed before the executing court H 376 IMPROVEMENT TRUST; LUDHIANA ETC. v. UJAGAR 377 SINGH & ORS. ETC. under 0.21 r. 90 CPC, it made enquiries and filed the appeal A - Ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders - Matter is remitted to the executing court to consider and dispose of appellant's objections filed under 0. 21 r.90 CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date - The auction purchaser has been put to inconvenience and 8 harassment as admittedly it had deposited a huge amount of Rs.22,65,0001- in the ye.ar 1992 but has not been able to get any fruits thereof till date - Therefore, appellant's appeal is allowed subject to payment of Rs.50,0001- to the auction purchaser within three weeks - Payment of cost is condition C precedent, without which the appellant would not be allowed to prosecute its objections - Appellant to bear the costs through out - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.21, r.90 - Costs. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. · D 1483 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 2.06.2004 of the High · Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1303 of 2000. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Ajay Kumar M. (for AS. Bhasme) E · for the Appellant. S.N. Bhat, Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered 1. Heard counsel on either side at length. Records perused. F 2. Even though both sides had cited several decisions of this Court on the scope and application of Section 5 of the G Limitation Act, but it is neither necessary nor required to deal with those cases in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 7 S.C.R. A 3. Land belonging to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was acquired by the appellant Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, for development scheme popularly known as "550 Acres Scheme". Reference Court had passed the Award and fixed the amount of compensation at rupees 4,27,068.20 paise together with B interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the - issuance of the notification in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The, appellant did not deposit the amount. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had to approach the Executing Court for recovery of the amount awarded. The property described as Khewat No.867. C Khautani No.971 Khasra No.272 admeasuring 7K-18M entered in jamabandi for the year 1988-89 in village Jabaddi No.160 Tehsil and District Ludhiana was attached for realisation of the decretal amount. Later a notice under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'C.P.C.') was stated to have been issued to the appellant. D However, d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.