Condonation of Delay in Civil Appeals: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Due to Negligence

The case of Mohd. Sahid & Others vs. Raziya Khanam (Dead) Through LRs & Another is a crucial ruling concerning the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on October 10, 2018, examined whether a delay of 349 days in filing an appeal could be condoned based on the reasons presented by the appellants.

The case highlights the importance of diligence in legal proceedings and emphasizes that courts will not grant leniency for delay unless a valid and reasonable cause is demonstrated. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, rejecting the appellants’ plea for delay condonation.

Background of the Case

The case arose from Civil Suit No. 591 of 1979, filed by Raziya Khanam against the appellants, seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated February 17, 1979, and May 17, 1979. She also sought a permanent injunction against them, claiming that the sale deeds were forged and executed fraudulently.

The trial court initially decreed the suit ex parte on April 16, 1981, against the appellants. The appellants later filed an appeal, and the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for reconsideration. Meanwhile, Raziya Khanam filed a writ petition before the High Court, which remained pending for almost 15 years. The writ petition was eventually dismissed on February 20, 2001, and the stay order was vacated.

Arguments by the Appellants (Mohd. Sahid & Others)

• The appellants claimed they were unaware of the trial court’s judgment dated May 10, 2012, until May 6, 2013, when a police constable informed them about it.
• They stated that after receiving this information, they applied for a certified copy of the judgment and filed an appeal on May 22, 2013, resulting in a delay of 349 days.
• The delay was not deliberate but due to a lack of knowledge of the proceedings.

Arguments by the Respondents (Legal Representatives of Raziya Khanam)

• The respondents contended that the appellants had full knowledge of the case and its proceedings.
• Order sheets from the trial court dated October 11, 2011, and October 14, 2011, recorded the presence of both parties.
• The appellants deliberately failed to appear in court and later sought to delay the proceedings.
• Their claim of not knowing about the case until May 2013 was incorrect and misleading.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the appellants’ claim that they were unaware of the judgment for almost a year.

Key Observations of the Court

• The order sheet dated October 11, 2011, showed that the trial court had discussed preliminary issues, and the parties were aware of further proceedings.
• The order sheet dated October 14, 2011, confirmed that both parties were present when the case was listed for evidence.
• The appellants had several opportunities to participate but failed to do so, leading to an ex parte decree on May 10, 2012.
• The appellants’ claim that they learned of the judgment from a police constable in May 2013 was contradictory and lacked credibility.
• The appellants had filed an objection before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on November 23, 2012, where they mentioned the trial court’s judgment, proving they were aware of it much earlier.

Final Ruling

• The Supreme Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision to dismiss the delay condonation plea.
• The High Court’s ruling was affirmed, stating that the appellants had been negligent and had made false claims.
• The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets an important precedent regarding delay condonation in civil cases:

• Court proceedings must be followed diligently, and parties cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for delay.
• False claims and misleading statements will not be tolerated by the courts.
• Litigants must take responsibility for their cases and cannot delay proceedings indefinitely.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Sahid vs. Raziya Khanam reinforces the principle that delays in litigation must be justified with genuine and reasonable causes. The Court’s refusal to condone the delay highlights the importance of diligence in legal proceedings and ensures that judicial processes are not misused.

Petitioner Name: Mohd. Sahid & Others.
Respondent Name: Raziya Khanam (Dead) Through LRs & Another.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 10-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mohd. Sahid & Others vs Raziya Khanam (Dead) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category