SRI VEERA HANUMAN RICE AND FLOUR MILL AND ANR. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, A.P.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SRI VEERA HANUMAN RICE AND FLOUR MILL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, A.P. 
APRIL 24, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
y 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
S. 5-Preliminary decree in suit for sale-Default by judgment-debtor-
Decree-holder ought to have filed application under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC for c 
passing final decree on or before 31.12.1991 but filed the same on 27. 7.1994 
alongwith an application under s. 5 of the Act-Application dismissed-Revi-
sion before High Court-Contention raised by judgment-debtor that delay of 
' 
714 days was not properly explained, as necessary proof of the claim of Legal 
Advisor as also of Advocate that they were not well during the relevant period 
was wanting and during that period the Advocate was regularly appearing in 
D 
the Court-High Court setting aside the order of lower court and allowing 
application for condonation of delay-Held, though bank being a Government 
Undertaking and a huge sum of public money involved, necessarily some 
~ 
indulgence may be shown in considering claims of parties, but it is no justifi-
,.. 
cation to omit even considering specific and relevant factual contention of 
E 
judgment-debtor regarding appearance of lawyer of the bank during the rel-
evant period-Matter remitted to High Court which would restore the revision 
on its file, consider the contention of judgment-debtor and decide the matter 
afresh-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 34, Rule 5. 
t-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2000. 
F 
From tl1e Judgment and Order dated 29.6.99 of ilie Andhra Pradesh 
\ 
\ 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 610 of 1998. 
M.N. Rao, G. Sridhar, Thim Changu and Y. Raja Gopala Rao for ilie 
Appellants. 
G 
Anil Kumar Sangal for ilie Respondents. 
() 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Special leave granted. 
H 
231 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit against the defendants (appellants herein) 
in O.S. No. 93 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachand-
rapuram, Andhra Pradesh, and obtained a preliminary decree on 31.12.87 for 
a sum of Rs. 70,087.75. The decree holder ought to have filed an application 
for passing a final decree in case of default on the part of the judgment-debtors 
B 
on or before 31.12.91, but actually filed an application on 27.7.94 for passing 
a fmal decree invoking Order 34 Rule 5, CPC, along with an application under 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for the condonation of delay of 
714 days. It may be pointed out at this stage that on the filing of the suit, the 
judgment-debtors filed an Insolvency Petition in LP. No. 6/87 and this came 
to be dismissed on 20.11.92. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
While dealing with the application for condonation of delay under 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act made in LA. No. 1079/94, the learned 
Sµbordinate Judge dismissed the same on the view that no suffici_ent cause had 
been shown to condone the delay. Aggrieved, the Bank pursued the matter 
before the High Court in a revision C.R.P. No. 610/98. A learned Single Judge 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside the order of the Court 
below, allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of 
a sum of Rs. 2,000 as costs, which ultimately the counsel for the appelJants 
in the Court below refused to receive, but came to be deposited in Court under 
orders of the learned Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the 
court below had taken not only a strict but hypertechnical view in the matter. 
It is in such circumstances the judgment-debtors filed the above appeal. Notice 
has been ordered and the respondent-Bank has filed a counter affidavit to 
which a rejoinder has also been filed by the appelJants. 
Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appelJants, 
strenuously contended that the High Court failed to properly apply its mind 
to all the contentions raised by the appellants and the discretion exercised by 
the learned Judge in the High Court in favour of the plaintiff-Bank was not 
in accordance with law. It was contended that though Law of Limitation may 
harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when 
the statute so ordains and the Courts cannot merely on equitable grounds, 
purport to extend the period of limitation prescribed in law. All the more so, 
when it has the effect of undoing substantial rights acqftired by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.