AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on I.A. No.6591/2018 submitted by appellant Corporation seeking condonation of delay in the matter of deposit of mesne profit pursuant to the
direction given by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2017.
Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant-appellant submits that appellant-applicant has filed a regular first
appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2001 passed by the court below by which a suit for eviction of appellant was decreed in favour
of the respondents.
He submits that the appeal was admitted on 20.03.2002 and thereafter, a direction was passed on 10.09.2008 for depositing of Rs.4,000/- per month as
mesne profit from 01.01.1990. The amount so directed was deposited and was being kept on depositing in compliance of the aforesaid order. He
further submits that during the pendency of the appeal, order dated 26.05.2017 was passed by this Court by which the mesne profits was enhanced to
the extent of Rs.1 lac per month from 01.05.2017 onward. It was directed that the aforesaid amount on month to month basis be regularly deposited
till disposal of the appeal and the same shall be deposited by 15th day of every succeeding month in the bank account No.10197871820 of respondent
No.3 namely, Jai Kumar Palawat, maintained in State Bank of India, Arya Nagar, Alwar, provided by the learned counsel for the respondents.
It was further directed that in case the appellant fails to deposit the mesne profits as aforesaid, the respondents shall be at liberty to get the decree
executed immediately without taking recourse of filing an application for execution.
Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Kasliwal submits that appellant-applicant applied on 27.05.2017 to obtain the certified copy of the aforesaid
order dated 26.05.2017. However, the certified copy was prepared and provided to the applicantappellant Corporation only on 03.07.2017, which in
turn was forwarded to the Regional Office and the same was thereafter, forwarded further for necessary approvals. Such process consumed some
time because the financial sanction and the necessary approvals was given on 29.09.2017; which followed deposit of first payment for the month from
May to September, 2017 amounting to Rs.4,30,000/- on 29.09.2017 after statutory deduction of 10%, thereafter, the payment of mesne profits is being
made within time.
He further submits that a contempt application was also filed by the respondents alleging non-compliance of order dated 26.05.2017 against the
appellant Corporation which was dismissed giving liberty to the respondents to file an application for execution. Thereafter, respondents filed an
application seeking execution of the decree of eviction dated 08.03.2001 and the learned Executing Court passed an order dated 16.12.2017. He
submits that the decree sought to be executed is jeopardized and the matter is subjudice in the appeal. The order dated 26.05.2017 is being complied
after due sanction.
He submits that an amount of mesen profit for the month from May to September, 2017 was deposited on 29.09.2017 immediately after necessary
approval accorded on 29.09.2017. He submits that appellant Corporation is a public sector undertaking and such approval is necessary before release
of the amount.
After 29.09.2017, month to month payment of mesne profit is being deposited and is being accepted by the respondents.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the delay caused in depositing the rent of mesne profits was not intentional but fresh financial sanction took the usual
time, the same may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.
Bal Kishan Mathur through Legal Representatives And Others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 592, State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO &
Ors. reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 752, State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 and
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353.
Mr. Keshav Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- non applicant opposed the application and submitted that since the order
dated 26.05.2017 was not complied with in the true spirit, therefore, the delay cannot be condoned.
I have considered the submissions made at bar.
The operative portion of the order dated 26.05.2017 reads as follow :-
“16. Accordingly, let the appellant pay mesne profits to the extent of Rs.1 lakh per month from 1.5.2017 onwards on month to month basis
regularly till disposal of the appeal, which shall be deposited by 15th day of every succeeding month in the bank account no.10197871820 of
respondent no.3, namely Jai Kumar Palawat, maintained in State Bank of India, Arya Nagar, Alwar, provided by the learned counsel for respondents.
In case the appellant fails to deposit the mesne profits as aforesaid, the respondents shall be at liberty to get the decree executed immediately without
taking recourse of filing an application for execution.â€
From the perusal of order dated 26.05.2017, it reveals that the rent was enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.1 lac per month and the order was passed on
26.05.2017 while it was directed that the mesne profits be deposited from 1.05.2017 itself and it is not disputed that the appellant tenant is a public
sector undertaking, therefore, financial sanction is required for depositing the aforesaid amount which is in lacs, the sanction is required from Zonal
Head as argued by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant and necessary decision is also required to comply with the order, therefore,
appropriate time is required.
In the matter of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Bal Kishan Mathur through Legal Representatives And Others (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that :-
“It is correct that condonation of delay cannot be a matter of course; it is also correct that in seeking such condonation the State cannot claim any
preferential or special treatment. However, in situation where there has been no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides the
Supreme Court has always taken a broad and liberal view so as to advance substantial justice instead of terminating a proceeding on a technical
ground like limitation. Unless explanation furnished for delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation whatsoever is offered or if the delay is
inordinate and third-party rights had become embedded during the interregnum, Courts should lean in favour of condonation. â€
In the matter of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO And Others (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :-
“It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to
table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in
the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the
State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression ""sufficient
cause"" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for
explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant
to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice- oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is
hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards
of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved
for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for
settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be
made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be
quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is
an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.
The above position was highlighted in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 132); and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition,
Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996 (10) SCC 634). It was noted that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it
would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing an appeal.
When the factual background is considered in the light of legal principles as noted above the inevitable conclusion is that the delay of 57 days deserved
condonation. Therefore, the order of the High Court refusing to condone the delay is set aside.â€
In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani And Others (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :-
“The expression ""sufficient cause"" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justiceoriented approach rather than the technical detection
of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental
conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process.â€
In the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag And Another vs. Mst. Katiji And Others (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :-
“The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is
administered in an equitable manner. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the
interpretation of the expression 'sufficient cause'. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in
view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.â€
In the case in hand, appellant-applicant is a public sector undertaking and as per application and arguments advanced, the application for certified copy
of order was filed on 27.05.2017 and the same was issued on 03.07.2017, thereafter, the same was forwarded for further necessary approvals and
necessary approval was given on 29.09.2017 and at the same date, the amount was deposited, which was received by the non-applicant-respondents.
The application is supported by an affidavit of Shri Manoj Goyal, Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, which has not
been rebutted by the respondent-nonapplicant, therefore, since reasonable explanation has already been furnished by the applicant-appellant for delay
in depositing the rent and considering the case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in depositing the rent in compliance of order
dated 26.05.2017, deserves to be condoned, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in depositing the rent is
condoned.