Brajesh Singh & Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Ors.

"245.

As already discussed in the earlier parts of this judgment, State or any of its instrumentalities cannot be accorded preferential treatment in matters concerning condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. G. Ramegowda, Major (supra) itself acknowledges that, ordinarily there is “no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel or agents”. Even if “there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal”. The relevant observations read as under:—

'14. The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See: Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji . There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal.'

246.

However, the reason why, this Court nonetheless, held that acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents should not be imputed to the Government at least for condonation of delay was in view of the earlier position of law, whereby the State and its instrumentalities were not placed on the same pedestal as any ordinary private litigant, in view of the impersonal character of the Government as an entity.

247.

But the position of law is no longer this. As per Postmaster General (supra) and the subsequent decisions of this Court, consideration for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not and cannot vary depending on the identity or status of the party, whether it be the Government, a public body, or a private litigant, so as to apply a different yardstick.

248.

The subsequent decision of this Court in Tejpal (supra), after duly taking note of the change in position of law, specifically rejected the contention that acts of mala fides on the part of specific individuals should not be imputed to the State or its instrumentalities. It held that to accept such a proposition would amount to creating an artificial distinction between the private parties and the Government entities vis -à-vis the law of limitation. The relevant observations read as under:—

'54. It seems to us that acceding to the appellants' request on the aforesaid account would also have undesirable consequences. If delay were to be condoned merely on the basis of a broad general assertion of bureaucratic indifference, without requiring demonstration of bona fides or an act of mala fides on the part of specific individuals, it would create an artificial distinction between the private parties and the Government entities vis-à-vis the law of limitation. This would not be in conformity with the spirit of equality before law as guaranteed under our Constitution. Allowing such latitude would further distort incentives for the Government and encourage more laxity by the bureaucracy in its general functioning, thereby undermining quality governance.'

249.

Once the State chooses to litigate, it must shoulder the same responsibilities and abide by the same limitations that bind every litigant. To permit the State to evade the consequences of delay on the ostensible plea that the fault lay with individual officers would amount to diluting the rigour of limitation statutes and undermining their very object. Such an approach would not only privilege the State unjustly over private parties but would also perpetuate a culture of indifference and irresponsibility within the administration.

250.

As far back as 1996, this Court in Chandra Mani (supra) held that where the case requires an appeal or application to be filed, despite the delay, then prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Thus, even if for a moment, we accept that, mala-fide actions of few officers should not be imputed to the Government, the position still remains that, once the State or its instrumentality finds that, few of its officers were negligent, it should promptly take action to file the appeal or application, as the case may be, through its other officers and simultaneously take action against the delinquent officers.

251.

As already observed, in the present case at hand, despite the callousness exhibited by the Executive Engineer, the respondent no. 1 herein took no steps towards mitigating the delays and ensuring that the appeal was preferring as soon as possible. On the contrary, the Executive Engineer was appointed to make representations for the respondent no. 1 in the proceedings. Even the disciplinary proceedings against the concerned Executive Engineer came to be initiated much later, to be precise exactly a month before the date on which the application for condonation of delay was filed. In such circumstances, even if we do not impute the deliberate inaction or mala fides on the part of the Executive Engineer to the respondent no. 1 herein, there is nothing to show that the respondent no. 1 acted in a reasonably diligent manner.

252.

Even if the case put up by the respondent no. 1 is to be accepted at its face value, the respondent no. 1 could be said to have failed to assign any genuine sufficient cause to justify the delay from the date of receiving intimation about the order of the First Appellate Court, passed on 15.04.2006 till the expiry of the limitation period, which was sometime in July 2006, because it was only in the correspondence dated 17.10.2006 that the respondent no. 1, while acknowledging the advice tendered by its advocate, reflected that it would prefer a second appeal. We have little to no hesitation in saying that on 17.10.2006, it was already too late in the day to take any decision or make any forms of mind. Nonetheless, the second appeal was only filed on 10.02.2017, with a delay of almost 11 years.

253.

As already noted in the foregoing parts of this judgment the respondent no. 1 could be said to have failed to explain the delay on its part from the date of the receipt of the order of the First Appellate Court till the expiry of the limitation period.

254.

We say so because if such observations by the High Court, to condone delay in the interest of a State-machinery, were allowed to be sustained by us, it would allow the State-machineries a leeway to systematically orchestrate delays in the guise of laxity exhibited by their authorities. Given the majesty and colossality a State-machinery would hold against a private litigant, it would be grossly unfair to a litigant, who would be perpetually entangled in the clutches of litigation, if enormous delays, like that of almost 11 years in the present case, are permitted to be condoned. This Court has never turned a blind eye to the gradients of substantive justice.

255.

It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 11-years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started in 1989. We are in 2025. Almost 36 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. The High Court has made a mockery of justice by condoning this delay of 3966 days and once again ask the appellant to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

256.

As far as the contention of the respondent no. 1 is concerned apropos to the merits of molding of relief by awarding of compensation by the First Appellate Court, the same is squarely answered by the principles encapsulated in Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), wherein it is categorically maintained that the court considering a condonation of delay ought not go into the merits of the case at hand.

257.

We also wish to highlight that the High Court applied the legal position incorrectly in the impugned order and performed an exercise of “merit-hunting”. It gave a prima facie relevance to the argument of the respondent no. 1 on the grounds that the suit of the appellant was not at all maintainable in the first place. In paragraph 13 of the impugned order, the High Court recorded that a semblance of right in favour of respondent no. 1 swayed its mind to allow the condonation of delay, and it accepted the same as a “sufficient cause”. We hold such observations to be erroneous and ex facie bad in law. Similar contentions were rejected by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, wherein the appellant-State was seeking a condonation of delay of 663 days. This Court sternly noted that it will not let the courts to be forums wherein the Government can walk-in, when it desires, entirely ignoring the period of limitation, and buttress reliance on cases of this Court wherein it allowed condonation, employing its discretionary powers, on merits or modalities of peculiarities of those cases. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

'3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government […] xxx xxx xxx

5.

A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

6.

We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorised earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the officer concerned responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straightaway the counsel appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.

7.

We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.”

258.

The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

259.

We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

260.

From the above exposition of law, it is abundantly clear that the High Court has erroneously condoned a massive delay of 3966 days on account of certain lapses at the administrative levels and of there being no follow-ups in the proceedings, along with finding certainmerits in the case of the respondent no. 1 against the maintainability of the suit of the appellant and that of the relief molded by the First Appellate Court. We have no hesitation in stating that such grounds are nowhere near to being “sufficient cause” as per Section 5 of the 1963 Act. The High Court lost sight of the fact that the precedents and authorities it relied upon by it had delays of two-digits, or even that of single-digit, more particularly the delay in those cases was supported by sufficient cause. The present case, however, stands on a very different footing, owing to such an enormous delay. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the condonation of the delay by the High Court.

V. CONCLUSION

261.

Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

262.

The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

263.

Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264.

No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.