LexLANKA VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS. versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 217 LANKA VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS. V. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2909-2913 of 2005) FEBRUARY 24, 2011 [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: A B c Or. 22,r.4 - Abatement of appeal -Inordinate delay in filing application for bringing legal heirs on record and for setting aside abatement - High Court passed a conditional order giving final opportunity to do the needful, failing which ·. the appeal was to stand dismissed-Order not complied 0 with-Subsequently, High Court allowed. all applications · condoning 3703 days delay in filing the application to bring the legal heirs on record and 883 days delay in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order-Held: Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation E Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers-All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law-The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason-Whims or fancies, prejudices or predilections can not and should not F form the basis of exercising discretionary powers-High Court, having recorded its conclusions and findings on the unacceptable explanation for delay, should not have condoned unconscionable delay-Judgment of High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and is set aside- G Limitation Act, 1963-s. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: 217 H 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R. A Remarks in judgment of High Court on performance of government pleaders -Appeal filed by State Government, before High court-Inordinate delay on the part of Government pleaders in taking steps to bring heirs and legal representative of the respondent on record-Remarks made B by High Court against Government pleaders-Held: High Court has, rather sarcastically, dubbed the government pleaders as without merit and ability-The approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain c whilst adjudicating any /is between the parties-The High Court not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, resorted to blatant sarcasms-The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number 0 of cases-The order of the High Court is based purely on the persona! perceptions and predilections of the Judges on the bench-The latent anger and hostility ingrained in the expressions employed in the judgment have denuded the judgment of impartiality-In its desire to castigate the government pleaders and the Court staff, the High Court has E sacrificed the ''iustice oriented approach", the bedrock of which is fairness and impartiality-The caustic remarks made by the High Court, against the government pleaders and the Court staff clearly exhibit a departure from settled principles- The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable either in law or F in equity and, as such, is set aside- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0r. 22, r.4 - Strictures - Judicial restraint. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court against judgment and decree in a suit for G declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff- respondent died on 25.2.1990 and his counsel filed a memo before the High Court giving the said intimation after notice to the advocate for the appellants. When the appeal came up for hearing on 24.4.1997, the counsel for H the plaintiff-respondent again brought to the notice of the LANKA VENKATESWARLU (D) BY LRS. v. STATE OF 219 AP. & ORS. High Court the factum of death of his client. Since, inspite A of the directions of the High Court, no steps wet": taken to bring the legal heirs and representatives of the plaintiff· respondent on record, on 6.2.1998, it gave one week's time for compliance failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. As the order was not complied with, the s appeal stood dismissed in terms of the order dated 6.2.1998. In the year 2000, an application was filed by the judgment-debtors before the High Court seeking ccndonation of 883 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998. On 17.8.2000 c another application was filed seeking to condone 3703 days delay to bring the legal representatives on reco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.