RAHEEM SHAH & ANR versus GOVIND SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 24-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
RAHEEM SHAH & ANR.
v.
GOVIND SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023)
JULY 24, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Delay – Condonation of – Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was
decreed by the trial court – Appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 in
the suit filed appeal, dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on the
ground of limitation – Second Appeal filed by the appellants was
also dismissed by the High Court – Held: Since the contention in
the appeal before the lower Appellate Court was that the judgment
was not in the knowledge of the appellants, that aspect of the matter
was required to be kept in view by the lower Appellate Court as the
appellants in fact had not taken effective part except filing written
statement – When there was delay of only 52 days in filing the appeal
and furthermore when the parties were litigating with regard to the
right over immovable properties, the substantial rights were to be
decided between the parties – The very manner in which the lower
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when
the delay was not inordinate is not justified – High Court also not
justified in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that there was
no question of law – Judgments passed by the High Court and the
lower Appellate Court, set aside – Delay in filing the appeal before
the lower Appellate Court condoned, appeal restored to its file –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.96 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 –
Practice and Procedure.
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst.
Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1987] 2 SCR 387
relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4628
of 2023.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 913 : 2023 INSC 651
913
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in SA No. 1185 of 2010.
Vikas Upadhyay, Nitin Gaur, Kaustubh Anshuraj, Kuber Boddh,
Arjun Singh Tomar, Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Advs. for the Appellants.
Abhishek Vikas, Anshuman Shrivastava, Abhijeet Shrivastava,
Abhishek Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal
papers.
2. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in the original suit bearing
Civil Suit No.3 A/02. The suit was decreed by the trial court through its
judgment dated 01.10.2005. The appellants herein who were the
defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit filed a Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code assailing the said judgment. Since
there was delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay.
The lower Appellate Court through its judgment dated 08.10.2010 had
dismissed the appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.35A/2005 on the ground
of limitation holding that the delay has not been properly explained and
had consequently dismissed the appeal. Against the said judgment, the
appellants were before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Second
Appeal bearing No.1185/2010. The Second Appeal has been dismissed
by the High Court through its judgment dated 16.04.2015 on the ground
that there is no question of law for consideration.
3. It is in that light, the appellants are before this Court in this
appeal. At the outset, having taken note that the contention in the appeal
before the lower Appellate Court was that the judgment was not in the
knowledge of the appellants herein, that aspect of the matter was required
to be kept in view by the lower Appellate Court since the appellants in
fact had not taken effective part except filing written statement. When
there was delay of only 52 days in filing the appeal and furthermore
when the parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable
properties, the substantial rights were to be decided between the parties.
The delay could have been condoned and the appeal could have been
decided on merits.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
4. This Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
& Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as
hereunder:
“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by
enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to
enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing
of matters on ‘merits’
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.