THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. versus KOTING LAMKANG

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 22-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.
v.
KOTING LAMKANG
(Civil Appeal No. 8298 of 2019)
OCTOBER 22, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Delay/Laches: Appeal by State – Delay of 312 days in
preferring the Regular First Appeal (RFA) – Condonation of –
Dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Condonation
was sought by the appellant on the ground that they made a bonafide
mistake in preferring the appeal against an order before the wrong
forum i.e. District Judge – The District Judge held that it had no
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and disposed of
appeal permitting the appellant to appeal before High Court –
Appeal to High Court – Time spent by appellant in wrong forum
was 44 days – High Court rejected the condonation application
observing that there was no explanation for time taken by appellant
for the remaining period – On that basis, RFA was not entertained
on merits – Appeal before Supreme Court – Plea of respondent was
that after decree dated 18.7.2016, the execution proceedings
commenced and finally concluded on 11.7.2018 and therefore,
nothing survived in RFA to be considered on merits inasmuch as,
possession of the concerned land was handed over to the respondent
– Held: Appellants preferred the appeal at first instance on
15.6.2017 before the District Judge – But since this was before the
wrong forum and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months
and there was no explanation for the time taken by the State between
18.7.2016 and 15.6.2017, the delay in the RFA before the High
Court was not condoned – In fact, the Court found that the State
did not show as to what prevented them from preferring the appeal
before the District Judge (wrong forum), until 15.6.2017 and that
the latitude in applying the standards of “sufficient cause” test was
not attracted – But while concluding so, it was necessary for the
court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the  slow
pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 565
565
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a
judgment adverse to it – Regard should be had to the impersonal
nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers
may fail to act responsibly – This in turn, would result in injustice to
the institutional interest of the State – In the instant case, under the
decree passed against the appellants-State and authorities, they were
directed to vacate and handover land, projected to be an area of
strategic importance by the appellants – Therefore, it was necessary
for making available to the appellants a legal forum, which could
consider their challenge to the decree – If consideration of the RFA
is not permitted on strategically sensitive case involving security, in
the ultimate analysis, the public interest is likely to suffer – Therefore,
to avoid injustice to the State’s interest and considering the special
circumstances in the matter at issue, in exercise of jurisdiction under
Art.136 of the Constitution, the delay in filing the first appeal is
condoned subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the appellants
in the High Court – RFA preferred by the appellants is restored for
consideration on its own merits –  Issue of possession and finalisation
of the execution is made subject to the final decision of the High
Court in the RFA – Executing Court directed to refund Rs. 15 lakhs
to the appellant-State deposited in the Executing Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8298
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2017 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in M.C. (RFA) No. 19 of 2017.
Leishangthem Roshmani Kh and Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Sridhar Potaraju, Shri Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ms. Shweta Parihar,
Ms. Shiwani Parihar, Ms. G. Usharsi and Vishnu Thulasi Menor, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated
27.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in
M.C.(RFA)No. 19 of 2017 in reference to RFA No. 5/2017 whereby
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
and where under, the learned Judge after considering the application
filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring
the Regular First Appeal, has declined to condone the delay and the
application was consequently 

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