LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus CHANDRA MANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF HARYANA v CHANDRA MANI AND ORS. JANUARY 30, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963 : C S.5-De/ay-Condonation of-Appeals by State-Sufficient cause-To D be considered with pragniatisnz in justice--Oriented approach rather than technical detection-Factors peculiar and characteristic of fu11ctioning of Govenune11t--Courts to be cognizant of-Separate sta11dards to detennine the cause laid by State vis-a-vis p1ivate litiga11t--Ca1111ot be laid down to prove st1ict sta11dards of sufficie11t cause-State can11ot be put on the same footing as an individual. Suggestions: Govenunent at appropriate levels to constitute legal cells to exanzine whether legal pn·nciples are involved-Officers in such legal cells to be autho1.ised to take decision or give approp1iate pennission for. settle- E ment-Prompt action to be pursued by the officer respo11sib/e to file the appeal a11d should be made responsible for lapses. Ram/a/, Motila/ & Clwte/al v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962] 2 SCR 762; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR (1976) SC 237; Jnder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR (1917) PC 156; Shalamta/a Devi Jai11 v. Kuntal F Kuman & Ors., (1969] l SCR 1006; Smt. Mi/avi Devi v. Di11a Nath, [1982] 3 SCR 366; O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Si11gh (dead) & Ors., (1984] 4 SCC 66; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & A11r. v. M>t. Katiji & 01>·., [1987] 2 SCC 107; Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra, (1987] Supp. SCC 338; G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, G [1988] 2 SCC 142 and Mis. Shakambaii & Co. v. Union of India, (1993] Supp. 1 SCC 487, relied on. Concord of !11dia !11sura11ce Co. Ltd. v. Ninnala Devi & Ors., (1979] 3 SCR 694; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, [1970] 2 SCR 90; State of Kera/a v. E.K. Kwiyipe & Ors., [1981] Supp. SCC 72; Scheduled Caste Coop. Land H Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 1 SCC 174; 1060 r STATEv. CHANDRA MANI 1061 Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, [1993) 1 SCC 572; Ram Kishan & Anr. A "1' v. U.P. State Roadways Transpon C01pn. & Anr., [1994) Supp. 2 SCC 507 and Warlu v. Gangot1ibai & Anr., (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 37, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4118-19 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.92 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1249-50 of 1992. Ms. Suruchi Agarwal for Ms. Indu Malhotra, for the Appellant. Ms. Arnita Gupta for the Respondent No. 2-6. Mahabir Singh for the Respondent No. 1. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides. We decline to express any opinion on merits. The Division Bench of the High Court refused to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. We have perused the reasons given for the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short, the 'Act') extends prescribed period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal except under the provisions of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, B c D E the 'Code') and gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The only condition is that the applicant/appel- F !ant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such ,period. In Ram/a/, Motila/ & Chhotellal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., [1962] 2 SCR 762, it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date G of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant/appellant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the pate on which the appeal/applica- tion is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sltami Misra, AIR (1976) SC 237, this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should received a liberal construction. In Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR (1917) PC 156 it was B observed that true guide for a court to exercise th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.