Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2896 of 2000
PETITIONER:
SRI VEERA HANUMAN RICE AND FLOUR MILL AND ANR.
RESPONDENT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, A.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/2000
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD & DORAISWAMY RAJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (3) SCR 231
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Special leave granted.
The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit against the defendants (appellants herein)
in O.S. No. 93 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachand-
rapuram, Andhra Pradesh, and obtained a preliminary decree on 31.12.87 for
a sum of Rs. 70,087.75. The decree holder ought to have filed an
application for passing a final decree in case of default on the part of
the judgment-debtors on or before 31.12.91, but actually filed an
application on 27.7.94 for passing a final decree invoking Order 34 Rule 5,
CPC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
seeking for the condonation of delay of 714 days. It may be pointed out at
this stage that on the filing of the suit, the judgment-debtors filed an
Insolvency Petition in I.P. No. 6/87 and this came to be dismissed on
20.11.92.
While dealing with the application for condonation of delay under Section 5
of the Limitation Act made in LA. No. 1079/94, the leamed Subordinate Judge
dismissed the same on the view that no sufficient cau’e had been shown to
condone the delay. Aggrieved, the Bank pursued the matter before the High
Court in a revision C.R.P. No. 610/98. A leamed Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, while setting aside the order of the Court below,
allowed the application tor condonation of delay subject to payment of a
sum of Rs. 2,000 as costs, which ultimately the counsel for the appellants
in the Court below refused to receive, but came to be deposited in Court
under orders of the learned Judge. The leamed Single Judge was of the view
that the court below had taken not only a strict but hypertechnical view in
the matter. It is in such circumstances the judgment-debtors filed the
above appeal. Notice has been ordered and the respondent-Bank has filed a
counter affidavit to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the
appellants.
Shri M.N. Rao, leamed senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
strenuously contended that the High Court failed to properly apply its mind
to all the contentions raised by the appellants and the discretion
exercised by the leamed Judge in the High Court in favour of the plaintiff-
Bank was not in accordance with law. It was contended that though Law of
Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so ordains and the Courts cannot
merely on equitable grounds, purport to extend the period of limitation
prescribed in law. All the more so, when it has the effect of undoing
substantial rights acquired by the other party. Argued the learned counsel
further that not only there had been no proper explanation for the delay
but the necessary proof of the claim that the Legal Advisor and the
Advocate of the Bank was not well during that period was wanting, inspite
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the specific plea raised by the appellants that the Bank’s lawyer,
during the very period for which the delay occurred, the condonation of
which was sought, was regularly appearing in the Court, was not specifi-
cally considered objectively and finding recorded and consequently the
order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned comisei appearing for the respondent-Bank contended
that the leamed Judge of the High Court was right in condoning the delay
when he was satisfied about the sufficiency of the cau’e and that in any
event the delay in raoving the Court for passing of the final decree was on
account of the bona fide and mistaken impression of the law of the time by
which they can move, and consequently no exception could be taken to the
well merited order of the learned Single of the High Court.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on either side. The respondent-Bank being a Government Undertak-
ing and since a huge sum of public money is involved, necessarily some
indulgence may by shown in considering claims of parties. But, it is no
justification to omit even considering the specific and relevant factual
conten-tion urged by the appellants that the Bank’s lawyer was really
appearing in Court regularly during those days. Since there has been such a
serious omission on the part of the High Court in considering this vital
aspect, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge made
in C.R.P. No. 610/ 98 could not be sustained but should be set aside and
the proceedings remitted to the High Court with a direction to restore the
revision on its file and consider the contention of the appellants made
with reference to the appear-ance in Court of the Legal Advisor and the
Advocate of the Bank in other cases, and thereafter decide the issue afresh
in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merit as the
circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record may warrant in
the opinion of the High Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the
matter shall stand remitted to the High Court on the above terms. No costs.