Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao

Published On : September 4, 2021

Citations: Katari Suryanarayana & Ors, v. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors, (2009) 11SCC 183

Date of Judgement: 08/04/2009

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2240 of 2009

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Appellant: Katari Suryanarayana & Ors

Respondent: Koppisetti Rao & Ors

Bench: Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha; Hon’ble Justice Mukundakam Sharma

Court: Supreme Court of India

Statutes Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure,1860; Order-22

Indian Limitation Act,1877; Section-3,5

Constitution of India– Article – 136,171,176

Cases Referred:

Union of India v. Ram Charan & Ors. [(1964) 3 SCR 467]; Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 685]; Prem Nath v. M/s. Kandoomal Rikhiram AIR 1958 Punj 361; Hanuman Dass v. Pirthivi Nath 1956 All LJ 367; Bhag Mal(Alias) Ram Bux & Ors. v. Munshi (Dead) by LRs & Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 285]; Perumon Bhagwathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 321].

Facts:

  • Original respondents filed a suit in Court praying for grant of mandatory injunction restraining appellant for using a land in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge; The respondents preferred an appeal in Court of Subordinate Judge, which granted the decree for mandatory injunction. Aggrieved by this appellant preferred second appeal in the High Court.
  • During the pendency of the case both the original respondents died, and their legal heir did not file their substitution in prescribed time. An application for condonation of delay was filed. The applications were barred by 2381 days and 2601 days respectively, but High Court refused to condone the delay.
  • Thus, the appellant/legal heir (Katari Suryanarayana) of the 2 respondents who died, made an appeal in Supreme Court.

Issues Involved:

Whether the Court can condone the delay only on the basis of death of original respondents?

Contention of Appellant:

The learned counsel of appellant contended that –

  1. The High Court committed a grave error insofar it failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellants were not aware of the consequences of the death of the respondents, and they had come to know there about only through the counsel at a much later state.
  2. A liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay should be taken.

Contention of Respondent:

The learned counsel of respondent contented that-

  1. The parties were living in a village and were neighbours, it is not possible that they were not aware of the dates of death of the original respondent.
  2. The limitation for filing an application for setting aside the abatement of the proceedings starts from the date of death and not from the date of knowledge thereabout.

Judgement:

The appeal was dismissed with no costs. The Court said that “Ignorance of legal consequence without something more would, in our opinion, be not sufficient to condone such a huge delay.”

Ratio Decidendi:

Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not take away the duty on the part of the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, to file an application for condonation of delay in bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff/appellant or defendant/respondent within the period prescribed. The period of limitation prescribed for making such an application is three months, under Article171 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act.

Obiter Dicta:

N/A

Conclusion:

It takes many years to pass a verdict, in the process of which parties can end up losing their lives, the legal heirs and representatives thus have their duties to be vigilant enough for their rights, the Court in this case, did not grant the condonation of delay as parties were neighbours and it was difficult for the Court to believe that they were not aware of the deaths of the original respondents and thus the Court has set an example in this case whereby it did not condone the delay merely on the basis of death of the respondent with no sufficient cause for such a huge delay. The Court also said that The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.”

Drafted By- Harshpreet Kaur, Lloyd Law College

Related Post