UMMER versus POTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 08-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
UMMER
v.
POTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2599-2600 of 2018)
MARCH 08, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5– “Sufficient cause” –Ex-parte
decree passed against the appellant – Application filed by appellant
for setting aside the same along with application for condonation
of delay in filing the application, dismissed– Appeal filed by
appellant before High Court along with application u/s.5 praying
for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the said appeal–
High Court dismissed the appeal as well as the application for
condonation of delay– On appeal, held: It is not disputed that
appellant is an old man and that he suffered heart disease during
the relevant period and was later down with dengue fever– It is
further not disputed that he was also mentally disturbed due to
disputes going on in his family – Cause shown by appellant, for
condoning the delay in filing the appeal before High Court, relating
to his prolonged illness during the period in question was a sufficient
cause within the meaning of s.5– High Court should have taken
liberal view in the matter and condoned the delay in filing the
appeal– Delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before High Court
is condoned, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908– Or. IX, r.13– Costs.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The cause pleaded by the appellant related to
his prolonged illness during the period in question. The appellant
also filed medical documents to support the factum of his illness
during the relevant time. It is not in dispute that the appellant is
an old man and in his late sixties. It is also not in dispute that he
did suffer heart disease during the relevant period and later he
was down with dengue fever. It is also not in dispute that he was
hospitalized to get medical treatment for these two ailments for a
long time during that period. It is also not in dispute that he was
mentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family and was
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 596
   596
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
not able to attend to his day-to-day duties due to his old age and
prolonged ailments. [Paras 14, 15] [599-F-G]
1.2 The High Court did not dispute the genuineness of these
facts and nor disputed the genuineness of the documents filed by
the appellant in support of the cause pleaded. On the other hand,
the High Court found as a fact that the appellant did suffer these
ailments. In the light of the aforementioned undisputed facts, the
High Court should have taken liberal view in the matter and held
the cause shown by the appellant as “sufficient cause” within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and accordingly
should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. One cannot
now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this
Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each
day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the
later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer
good law. [Paras 16-18] [599-H; 600-A-C]
1.3 Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the appellant,
which is duly proved by the documents, the cause shown by the
appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the
High Court was/is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section
5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the application filed by the
appellant for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the appeal
deserves to be condoned, subject to  the appellant paying cost of
Rs.10,000/- to respondent No. 1. The appeal  is held to have
been filed within limitation. It is accordingly restored to its original
number. [Paras 19, 20] [600-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 2599-
2600 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2016 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Mat. Appeal No. 653 of 2016 and C.M. Appl.
No.1986 of 2016 in Mat. Appeal No. 653 of 2016 respectively.
Deepak Prakash, Bineesh K., Subhash Choudhary, Ms. Athira G.
Nair, Ranvee Dahiya, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Sree Devi, P. V.
Dinesh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sriram P, Vishnu Sankar, Advs. for the Respondents.
UMMER v. POTTENGAL SUBIDA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the

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