Events Or Circumstances Arising After Expiry Of Limitation Cannot Constitute 'Sufficient Cause’ For Delay Condonation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation cannot constitute 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation.
The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to dismiss a Second Appeal due to an inordinate delay of 1,788 days. The Bench imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the State, citing a lack of sufficient cause for the delay and the misuse of its time.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan reiterated “No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.”
Deputy Advocate General Harmeet Singh Ruprah represented the Petitioner.
The Trial Court dismissed the Respondent's suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision in favour of the Respondent. Despite receiving communication of the judgment, the State took no immediate action. A delay of over three years occurred before permission to file an appeal was granted. Subsequently, the Second Appeal was filed accompanied by an application for condonation of the 1,788-day delay. The High Court, however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
The Supreme Court explained that if the period of limitation in a case is 90 days, then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. “What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day,” it clarified.
The Bench held, “It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time.”
The Court noted that in this case, the “enormous delay” of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the Appeal was due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, and therefore, directed the State of Madya Pradesh to penalise the officers responsible for any “delay, deviation, lapses” to the value of the loss caused to the Government after observing the callous and lackadaisical attitude of the officials in a condonation of delay case.
Consequently, the Court imposed costs on the State and held, “We have deemed it necessary to impose costs to send a stern message that the States must not misuse the Supreme Court’s time by filing appeals against the well-reasoned and conscious decisions rendered by the High Courts without proper grounds.”
“Accordingly, we dismiss this Special Leave Petition with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the State within a period of two weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and file proof thereof. If the said amount, as directed, is not deposited by the State, the Registry shall take necessary steps for recovery of the same, in accordance with law,” the Bench held.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 932)
