SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
P.K.
Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September,
1997
Bench: Justice A. S. Anand and Justice K. Venkataswami
P.K. RAMACHANDRAN
........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
........Respondents
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 19/09/1997
BENCH: A. S. ANAND,
K. VENKATASWAMI
JUDGMENT
Leave
granted.
The
respondent - state of Kerala and Anr. filed Miscellaneous First Appeal
No.316/96 against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Court at Kollam in
Arbitration Application No. 108/92. The appeal was barred by 565 days. The
respondents filed an application seeking condonation of delay and by the order
impugned herein, that delay was condoned. The impugned order reads thus :
"This
is an application to condone the delay of 565 days in filing an appeal. The
petition is seriously opposed by the respondent. But taking into consideration
the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to
condone the delay, we are inclined to allow the petition. The petition stands
allowed."
It would be noticed from a perusal of the
impugned order (supra) that the court has not recorded any satisfaction that
the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is
essential pre-requisite to condonation of delay. That apart, we find that in
the application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of delay, the
thrust in explaining the delay after 12.5.1995, si:
"at that time the Advocate General's office was fed up with so many arbitration matters equally important to this case were pending for consideration as per the directions of the Advocate General on 2.9.1995."
This
can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper
explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the
application seeking condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it
is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned
Sub Judge, Kollam on 30.10.1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was
examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Law Secretary
and the Advocate General and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided
that there was no scope for filing the appeal but lateron, despite the opinion
referred to above, the appeal was filed as late as on 8.1.1996 without
disclosing why it was being filed. The High Court does not appear to have
examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is
conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the
facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable
or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of
the inordinate delay of 565 days.
Law
of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power
to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion
exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order
condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and
the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation
of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous
First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.
Cited in: Majji Sannemma @Sanyasiroa Vs Reddy Srideva & Ors (2021)