Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.50515052 OF 2009
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban
Development Authority & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gopi Chand Atreja …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and orders dated 23.01.2008 and
05.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4110 of 2007 and
R.A.C. No.23C of 2008 in R.S.A. No.4110 of 2007
respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the
second appeal as well as the review application filed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.03.12
16:36:15 IST
Reason:
the appellants herein.
1
2. These appeals involve a short point as would be
clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.
3. The appellants herein is the Haryana Urban
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as
“HUDA”). They are the defendants whereas the
respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which
these appeals arise.
4. The respondent filed a civil suit being Civil Suit
No.305 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge(Jr.
Division), Karnal against the appellants(HUDA)
claiming a decree for declaration with consequential
relief of permanent and mandatory injunction in
relation to the suit land. The suit was decreed by the
Trial Court on contest vide judgment/decree dated
01.05.2001.
5. The appellants (defendants) felt aggrieved and
filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No.92 of 2001 in
the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. By
judgment dated 07.02.2002, the first Appellate Court
2
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second
appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh. Since the appeal filed by the appellant
was barred by 1942 days, the appellants filed an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
prayed for condoning the delay in filing the second
appeal.
7. By impugned order dated 23.01.2008, the High
Court rejected the application and declined to condone
the delay. The High Court held that the cause pleaded
by the appellants for condoning the delay is not a
sufficient cause. As a consequence, the second
appeal was also dismissed as being barred by
limitation.
8. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed a
review petition. By order dated 05.02.2008, the High
Court also dismissed the review petition.
3
9. Against the orders dated 23.01.2008 and
05.02.2008, the appellants(defendants) have filed
these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
10. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’
second appeal on the ground of limitation.
11. In other words, the question arises for
consideration in these appeals is whether the High
Court was justified in not condoning the delay of 1942
days in filing the second appeal by the
appellants(defendants).
12. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel
for the respondent.
4
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in these appeals.
14. In our view, the delay of 1942 days in filing the
second appeal in the High Court was rightly not
condoned by the High Court for the reasons mentioned
below.
15. First, the delay was inordinate; Second it was not
properly explained; and Third, the ground alleged in
support of application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act did not constitute a sufficient cause.
16. The appellantHUDA is a statutory authority
created under the Haryana Urban Development
Authority Act, 1977. It has its wellestablished legal
department to look after the legal cases filed by HUDA
and against the HUDA in various Courts. They have
panel of lawyers to defend their interest in Courts.
17. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been
contesting the civil suit and the first appeal since
5
inception. The appellants were, therefore, fully aware
of the adverse orders passed in the first appeal against
them. There was, therefore, no justification on their
part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file
the appeal within 90 days or/and refile it immediately
after curing the defects.
18. If, according to the appellantsHUDA, their
lawyer did not take timely steps, which resulted in
causing delay in its filing/refiling, then, in our view, it
cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
19. In our view, it was equally the duty of the
appellants (their legal managers) to see that the appeal
be filed in time. If the appellants noticed that their
lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the brief
in question, then they should have immediately
engaged some other lawyer to ensure that the appeal
be filed in time by another lawyer.
6
20. In our view, it is a clear case where the appellant
HUDA,i.e., their officers, who were incharge of the
legal cell failed to discharge their duty assigned to
them promptly and with due diligence despite
availability of all facilities and infrastructure. In such
circumstances, the officersincharge of the case
should be made answerable for the lapse on their part
and make good the loss suffered by the appellants
HUDA.
21. A delay of 1942 days (4 years 6 months), in our
view, is wholly inordinate and the cause pleaded for its
condonation is equally unexplained by the appellants.
In any case, the explanation given does not constitute
a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. It was, therefore, rightly not
condoned by the High Court and we concur with the
finding of the High Court.
7
22. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly
dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 12, 2019
8