P.K. RAMACHANDRAN Vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR. (1997)

 

Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Decided on: 19-09-1997.

Citation: AIR 1998 SC 2276.

Equivalent Citation: 1997(4) Suppl. SCR 204; 1997 (7) SCC 556; 1997 (8) JT 189.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6514 Of 1997.

Case Type: Civil Appeal.

Parties to the case: Appellants – P.K. Ramachandran.

Respondent- State of Kerala & Anr.

Bench: Hon’ble A.S. Anand, Hon’ble K.Venkataswami,

Statutes Referred: Section 5 of Law of Limitation, 1963.

Facts of the Case:

  • This is one of the leading case laws in respect of condonation of delay.
  • A miscellaneous First appeal numbered 316/96 was filed by the respondent which is the State of Kerala and Anr. in the present case.
  • This appeal was against the decree passed by the Kollam sub court in Arbitration application No.108/92.
  • The application by the respondent was for condonation of delay and it is important to note that the appeal was barred by 565 days.
  • The High Court, considering all averments and affirmations stated in the affidavit, passed the impugned order in favour of the respondent, granting the condonation of delay.
  • This is an appeal by the appellant (P.K. Ramachandran) seeking leave against the impugned order passed by the High Court of Kerala in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Issues Involved:

  • Whether the grant of condonation of delay by the Kerala High Court proper and reasonable?
  • Whether there was any scope for filing of any appeal by the respondent after the same has been adjudged by the Sub-court of Kollam?

Parties Contention:

Appellant’s Argument:

  • It is contended that after the adjudication of the matter by the Sub court at Kollam on 30.10.1993, the scope for filing the appeal was tested.
  • Furthermore, there was an inordinate delay of 565 days by the respondent side without any proper explanation about the same.
  • Most significantly, the examining committee which consisted of District Government Pleader, Law Secretary, Special Law Officer, and the advocate General after proper scrutiny of the matter opined that there lies no scope for filing any appeal.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • It was asserted by the respondent that at the time when an appeal was due, the Advocate General’s office was fed up with numerous arbitration matters for consideration.
  • Moreover, these matters were equally significant with that of the respondent’s matter.
  • Hence, this delay after 12.05 1995 was caused in filing an appeal against the decree of the sub court of Kollam.

Rationale:

  • There was an inordinate delay of 565 days from the respondent’s side.
  • Thereafter, the reasons stated by the appellant were neither satisfactory nor reasonable to make an application of Section 5 of Law of limitation.
  • The preconditions for seeking condonation of delay could not be established sufficiently by the party.
  • Also, the Kerala High Court on its part has not recorded any satisfaction that the delay was proper and judicious.
  • The assessment of the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Advocate General regarding the scope for filing of an appeal was also not taken into consideration.

Judgement:

  • In the absence of any reasonable and proper explanation regarding the condonation of delay by the respondent, the order by the High court cannot sustain.
  • There lies no scope for filing the appeal and after the assessment about the same by the committee, the High Court has erred in passing the order.
  • The limitation period cannot be extended by the Courts unreasonably and without any proper explanation.
  • The impugned order by the passed High Court of Kerala was not judicious and is thus set aside.
  • The present appeal in the apex court is granted while the Miscellaneous First Appeal by the respondent stands disposed of…

Conclusion:

From the above-stated case, we can conclude that the Hon’ble Apex Court, through this judgement made an attempt to rectify the mistake of the Kerala High Court in passing the impugned order on behalf of the respondent.

The Laws of Limitation must be applied with all diligence as per the law. Thus, the Hon’ble bench has appropriately set aside the impugned order passed by the Kerala High Court.

Related Post