POONAM & OTHERS versus HARISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 03-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 291 
POONAM & OTHERS 
v. 
HARISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 9059 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 03, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND 
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Delayllaches - Appeal - Delay of 63 days in filing appeal 
against the judgment and decree passed by trial court in a C 
civil suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants - Application for 
condonation of delay in filing appeal dismissed by the 
appellate court - Order upheld by High Court in revision -
Held: When a Court exercises its discretion in either 
condoning or refusing to condone delay in filing any o 
proceeding, the Court acts in exercise of its discretion -
Normally, Supreme Court in exercise of its discretion under 
Article 136 of the Constitution may not interfere with the 
exercise of discretion by the High Court in such matters -
However, there is no strait-jacket about this - The discretion E 
of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is 
meant to further the ends of justice and Supreme Court has 
been using its discretion in appropriate cases when it is 
satisfied that exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court or other 
Tribunals has not been on sound judicial principles - In the 
facts of this case it is clear that of all the three ladies, who were F 
the appellants, one of them was pursuing the case and she 
fell sick - Therefore, she was not in a position to pursue the 
legal remedy with due diligence as a result of which the 
appeal was filed with a delay of 63 days - The delay of 63 G 
days is not a delay for a long period and there was some 
explanatio'n for the delay -
The High Court should have 
considered the explanation for the delay along with the facts 
of the case, the position of the parties, the nature of the 
291 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A litigation and the period of delay - The High Court should also 
have considered that it has been settled by a catena of cases 
that, unless the delay is gross, an explanation for the same 
should be liberally construed - Apparently, the High Court 
was not able to consider all these relevant facts in their correct 
B perspective before passing the impugned order - Order of the 
High Court set aside and delay in filing the appeal condoned 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
Appellants nos. 1 to 3 are sisters of Respondent no. 
1, who is their brother. The parents of the parties had 
C died. The appellants filed a civil suit for declaration of their 
title as 3/9th owner each, of the suit scheduled properties 
and for permanent injunction restraining Respondent 
no.1 from interfering with their peaceful possession and 
creating any third party rights In the said properties. The 
D Trial Court dismissed the suit and accordingly a decree 
was drawn up. 
The appellants-plaintiffs challenged the judgment 
and decree by filing an appeal before the District Judge. 
E The appellants-plaintiffs also filed an application for 
condonation of delay of 63 days in filing the appeal 
stating that appellant no. 2 and 3 were married and 
illiterate; that appellant no.1 was pursuing the case in the 
court but during pendency of the case, appellant no.1 fell 
F ill and therefore requested the counsel to intimate to the 
appellants regarding the position of proceedings; that the 
counsel assured that he will inform the appellants as and 
when their presence was needed in the court, but the 
counsel never informed the appellants for giving their 
evidence in court, which resulted in dismissal of the case; 
G that later someone from the locality informed the 
appellants about the dismissal of the case whereafter the 
appellants rushed to the Court and applied for a certified 
copy of the judgment and then filed the appeal a little 
belatedly. The District Judge dismissed the application for 
H 
POONAM & ORS. v. HARISH KUMAR AND ANR. 
293 
condonation of delay on the ground that the delay was 
A 
not bona-fide and no reasonable cause has been made 
out to condone the delay. The reasoning of the District 
Judge for reaching the above conclusion was that, (i) the 
appellants were neither illiterate nor rustic villagers as all 
of them had signed in English and (ii) that during course 
8 
of proceedings before the trial court, the appellants were 
careless and negligent. Against this order, the appellants 
preferred a revision before the High Court. The High 
Court upheld the order of the District Judge holding that 
the delay of 63 days in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.