Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal but when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired, it was not possible to file the appeal within time.

"No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation", a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Referring to Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another Vs State of Gujarat (1981), the bench pointed out that over a period of time, it has noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay, be it at the instance of a private litigant or State, the delay is sought to be explained right from the time the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same.

Giving an example, the court said, if the period of limitation is 90 days and the party seeking condonation, it has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation.

"What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day," the bench said.

The court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh government with Rs one lakh as cost to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre with a period of two weeks.

The bench deemed it necessary to impose costs to send a stern message that the States must not misuse the Supreme Court’s time by filing appeals against the well-reasoned and conscious decisions rendered by the High Courts without proper grounds.

The bench opined it could not simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery.

"Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved," the bench said.

The court directed the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc, fix the responsibility on the officers concerned, and penalise those who are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc, if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government.

"Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously," the bench said.

The state of Madhya Pradesh filed the present SLP against the judgment of January 24, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the Second Appeal, whereby, the High Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced for it.

The state government said that athe delay in filing second appeal was well explained by the State, and it was not intentional.

It said, however, the High Court erroneously dismissed the second appeal on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, wherein, valuable Government lands measuring total extent of 1,300 Hectare situated at Village Majhganwa, Tehsil and District Katni, were involved.

The state counsel further submitted that though the trial Court passed the well-reasoned judgment dismissing the suit filed by the respondent, the first Appellate Court reversed the same and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent, thereby affecting the right of the petitioner in respect of the said lands.

Evidently, the bench noted, there was enormous delay occurred at every stage i.e., from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State.

It recorded that the judgment was passed by the First Appellate Court on August 21, 2014 and the same was communicated by the Government Advocate representing the State to the Collector, only on August 25, 2015 i.e., after a delay of one year.

Causing 3 months delay, by letter of December 10, 2015, the Collector informed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, about the passing of the judgment against the State and a second appeal against the same.

Thereafter, the Law Department took three years’ time and gave permission for filing appeal on October 26, 2018, which was sent to the Collector on October 31, 2018. Based on the said opinion, after preparation of the appeal papers, the State filed the second appeal only on October 18, 2019.

"Hence, there was inordinate delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal, but the same was not properly explained by the State," the bench noted.

The bench pointed out that the legal position is that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him from approaching the court within limitation.

Referring to Majji Sannemma Vs Reddy Sridevi (2021) and Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram (2023), the bench said that, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

"We are of the opinion that the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this petition at the threshold," the bench said.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramkumar Choudhary