LexK.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) versus GYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 616 : 2024 INSC 281 K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4785 of 2024) 08 April 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* And Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether there was sufficient cause for delay of fourteen years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule 7 – Application filed after delay of 14 years – Limitation Act, 1963, s. 5 – Condonation of delay is discretionary power of the court – Power to be exercised judiciously – Not in cases of gross negligence on part of litigant – 14 years delay cannot be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ not shown – Gross negligence on part of appellant in pursuing the matter. Held: Appellant took 14 years to challenge an order of Trial Court to proceed ex parte against him – No satisfactory explanation for delay in filing application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC – Appellant grossly negligent in pursuing the matter before the Trial Court – Trial Court, revisional court and the High Court correct in dismissing claim – ‘Sufficient cause’ not defined in s. 5, Limitation Act – Has to be construed liberally and in order to meet ends of justice – Deserving and meritorious cases should not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay – Discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously – Delay due to gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the litigant not to be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ can be given liberal construction when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant [Paras 9, 10] Case Law Cited Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. [2021] 9 SCR 476 : (2021) 18 SCC 384; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. [1997] Supp. [2024] 4 S.C.R. 617 K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. 4 SCR 204 : (1997) 7 SCC 556; Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. [2013] 9 SCR 782 : (2013) 12 SCC 649 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Sufficient cause; Condonation of delay; Inordinate delay; Good cause; Discretionary power; Negligence. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4785 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MUA227 No. 1575 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Advs. for the Appellant. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Kartikey, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this court has challenged the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by which the petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The appellant had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.03.2022 of the Additional District Judge, Barabanki, who had upheld the order dated 07.10.2021 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barabanki. 3. The dispute between the parties to this appeal relates to a piece of land situated in village Gharsaniya, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District - Barabanki, which was sold by one Kalawati (Respondent 618 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports No. 4 herein) to one Mansa Ram (Respondent No. 5 herein), vide sale deed dated 30.03.2006. Thereafter, the property was sold by Respondent No. 5 to the appellant herein vide a registered sale deed dt. 13.04.2006. 4. On 22.04.2006, Civil Suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.03.2006, was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 herein before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barabanki. The appellant was impleaded as Defendant No. 3 in the suit. It was contended before the Trial Court by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 that Respondent No. 4 had no transferrable right or title over the property when the sale deed dated 30.03.2006 was executed in favour of Respondent No. 5 and thus, the property could not have been sold to Respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 asserted their claim over the property before the Trial Court st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.