LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 76 : 2024 INSC 262 Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR (Civil Appeal No. 4672 of 2024) 03 April 2024 [Aniruddha Bose and J.B. Pardiwala,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order by which it declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application by appellants- Union of India for restoration of the Writ Petition. Headnotes Delay – Non-condonation of – Length of the delay, relevant – Decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of respondent in 1987 – Appeal thereagainst filed by appellants-Union of India, dismissed in 1992 – Said order of the appellate court was challenged by the appellants by filing Writ Petition in 1993 which was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2006 – Respondent filed Execution Petition in 2013 – Later, appellants filed application seeking restoration of the Writ Petition filed in 1993 and for condonation of delay of 12 years and 158 days in preferring such restoration application – Impugned order passed by High Court declining to condone the said delay – Correctness: Held: Length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not – Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, delay cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate and thus, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations – Further, while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter – Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation – It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits [2024] 4 S.C.R. 77 Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay – Question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration – Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity – It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years – In the present case, litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981 – Almost 43 years have elapsed however, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree – Appellants failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case – No error committed by High Court in passing the impugned order. [Paras 26, 27, 25, 34] Case Law Cited Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2010] 2 SCR 1172 : (2010) 5 SCC 459; Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited [2012] 1 SCR 1045 : (2012) 3 SCC 563; Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others [2011] 3 SCR 217 : (2011) 4 SCC 363; Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & others [2008] 15 SCR 135 : (2008) 17 SCC 448; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others [2013] 9 SCR 782 : (2013) 12 SCC 649 – relied on. List of Keywords Limitation; Gross delay; Delay condonation; Sufficient cause; Length of the delay; Principles of equity. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4672 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CA No. 1494 of 2019 Appearances for Parties R.Venkataramani, AG, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Col. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Chinmayee Chandra, Chitvan Singhal, 78 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Mahesh P Shindhe, Ms. Rucha A Pande, Veeraragavan M, C Sawant, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from an order passed by a learned single Judge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.