LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 18:24 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently made a significant ruling by declining to condone a delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree issued by a Munsiff Court in a civil lawsuit.
Justice A. Badharudeen refused to grant condonation for the delay, citing the absence of substantial reasons justifying it.
“The decisive factor for condoning the delay is the presence of ‘sufficient cause.’ While it is established that a lenient approach should be taken when condoning delays, it is equally established that when a delay is attributed to dilatory tactics, lacks good faith, or is due to deliberate inaction or negligence, such condonation is not feasible,” the Court stated.
The appellant had submitted an application before the Sub Court in Sulthanbathery, seeking to condone a delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree in a civil suit issued by the Munsiff Court in Kalpetta.
The primary appellant argued that the delay resulted from his advanced age, related health issues, and significant mental health disorders, including Psychosis. As a result, he was unable to communicate with legal counsel and proceed with the appeal.
The respondent’s counsel contended that the reasons outlined in the affidavit supporting the petition were insufficient to warrant the condonation of a delay exceeding ten years and requested the dismissal of the appeal.
The Sub Judge had dismissed the application, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2014), which established that if a case is presented to the Court beyond the statute of limitations, the applicant must explain to the Court the “sufficient cause” that prevented timely action.
The Court examined Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the “Extension of prescribed period in certain cases,” emphasizing that “sufficient cause” is the pivotal factor for condoning the delay.
The Court noted that the appellant’s health conditions were not adequately substantiated with compelling evidence, aside from the submission of one original OP book and two OP tickets. Moreover, no medical professionals were called to testify regarding the petitioner’s condition over the ten-year period.
Additionally, the Court found the appellant’s assertion that appellants 2 to 4 had entrusted him with filing the appeal to be unreliable, as they had failed to take action for an extended period.
“In this case, no valid reasons have been presented to condone the lengthy delay of 3,366 days. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the learned Sub Judge properly dismissed the petition seeking condonation of the delay, and this Court need not interfere with the order to burden the plaintiff after a decade,” the Court concluded, ultimately dismissing the Second Appeal.
Case Title: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.