LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 137
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
v.
BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No 8243 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
A
B
Delay - Condonation of - Delay on part of the State in
filing writ appeal before High Court - In the application for C
condonation of delay date of filing the appeal was
inadvertently mentioned as 2. 11. 2006 instead of 8. 11. 2006
- Dismissal of the application on the ground that the delay
of 6 days i.e. from 2.11.2006 to 8.11.2006 not explained -
Held: It is not proper to terminate a proceeding on technical
D
ground like limitation, where there is no gross negligence, or
· deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides - In the instant case,
in view of the fact that error was occasioned by inadvertence
and in view of period of delay; High Court ought to have
condoned the delay - Matter remitted to High Court.
E
There was delay of 98 days in filing writ appeal before
High Court, on behalf of the appellant-State. In the
application for condonation of delay, date of filing the
appeal was mentioned as 2.11.2006 while the actual date
of filing was 8.11.2006. Division Bench of High. Court
F
refused to condone the delay on the ground that the
State could not explain the delay of 6 days i.e. from
2.11.2006 to 8.11.2006. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High ·
Court, the Court
G
HELD: 1. It is correct that condonation of delay
cannot be a matter of course; it is also correct that in
seeking such condonation, the State cannot claim any
137
H
138· ·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A preferential or special treatment. However, in situation
where there has been no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bonafides, a broad and liberal view
needs to be taken so as to advance substantial justice .
instead of terminating a proceeding on a technical
B ground like limitation. Unless the explanation furnished
for the delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation
whatsoever is offered or if the del~y is inordinate and
third party rights had become embedded during the
interregnum, the Courts should lean in favour of
c condonation. [Para 9) [141-E-G]
·
D
Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd:. (2012) 3
SCC 563: 2012 (1) SCR 1-045; Amalendu Kumar Bera vs.
State of West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC 52: 2013 (2) SCR 484 -
referred to.
2. In the present case, the High Court seems to have
accepted the explanation for the delay upto 02.11.2006.
Thereafter, taking into account the statement made in the
condonation application that the appeal has been filed on
E · 02.11.2006, whereas it was ac•~ iall'y filed on 08.11 .'2006,
the High Court refused to condone the delay of the :-ieriod
between the two dates i.e. six days. The mention of the
date 2.11.2006 is an errqr occasioned by inadvertence.
The inadvertence or even if the above act is construed
F to be negligent, cannot be sufficient to justify a refusal
of the· adjudication of tt)e appeal filed by the State on
!"1erits which is the ~ltimate consequence of the
impugned order. Taking1 into account the totality of the
facts of the case, particularly the period of the delay, the
High Court should have condoned the delay. [Para 10]
G [143-8-C, D-F]
H
Case Law Reference:
2012 {1) SCR 1045
2013 (2) SCR 484
referred to
referred to
Para 9.
Para 9
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) 139
THROUGH LRS ..
CIVIL APPELLAT.E JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
A
8243 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special
Appeal No. 02033 of 2007.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, Milind Kumar for
the Appellants.
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Though the only issue that arises in this appeal is with
regard to the correctness of the order dated 12 .11 .2008 passed
8
c
by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court declining to
condone the delay that had occurred in the institution of Special
D
Appeal Writ No.02033 of 2007 by the appellant, a brief
conspectus of the relevant f~cts would be appropriate.
3. An order of eviction dated 17 .12.1980 under the
Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction .of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1964 was passed by the Estate Officer against
E
the respondent (Now rExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.