Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P.K. RAMACHANDRAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/1997
BENCH:
A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.