Supreme Court Rejects High Court’s Condonation of 1011-Day Delay in Civil Appeal

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to condone a massive delay of 1011 days in filing a Second Appeal. The case, which involved a dispute over a permanent injunction, saw the Supreme Court reinforcing the principle that litigation must be conducted with diligence and within the prescribed time limits.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao, had filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 40 of 2013) seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents, Reddy Sridevi & Ors. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on April 23, 2016. However, the First Appellate Court overturned the decision in favor of the appellant on February 1, 2017.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-money-suit-decrees-in-family-business-dispute/

Following this, the respondents applied for a certified copy of the appellate judgment on February 4, 2017, which was made available on March 10, 2017. However, instead of filing a Second Appeal within the stipulated time, the respondents delayed the process by an unprecedented 1011 days, finally approaching the High Court in 2021. The High Court, in its ruling, condoned the delay, allowing the Second Appeal to proceed.

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant’s counsel strongly opposed the condonation of the delay, making the following arguments:

• No sufficient cause was provided by the respondents to justify a delay of 1011 days.
• The High Court did not record any finding that a valid explanation was given for the delay.
• There was a complete lack of explanation for the period between March 15, 2017, and June 2021.
• Established precedents of the Supreme Court emphasized that such a long delay could not be condoned without strong and convincing reasons.
• The judgment of the First Appellate Court had attained finality, and condoning the delay would unfairly disturb the rights of the appellant.

The appellant relied on key judgments such as:

• Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., which highlighted the importance of respecting limitation periods.
• P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, which held that courts should not condone delays lightly.
• Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, which emphasized that laws of limitation are based on public policy.

Respondents’ Defense

The respondents, represented by counsel Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, defended the High Court’s decision, making the following arguments:

• The High Court had exercised discretion in condoning the delay, and the Supreme Court should not interfere.
• Allowing the appeal to be heard on merits would not cause any prejudice to the appellant.
• The delay should be overlooked to ensure a fair opportunity to present the case.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the case, ruled against the High Court’s condonation of delay. The key findings of the Supreme Court were:

• The High Court did not find any substantial cause explaining the 1011-day delay.
• The respondents failed to provide any justification for the period after March 15, 2017.
• Established precedents clearly indicated that condonation of delay should not be exercised arbitrarily.
• The laws of limitation exist to ensure certainty and diligence in litigation, and a party cannot be allowed to ignore them.

The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should exercise their discretion judiciously and should not condone delay where negligence and inaction are evident. In this case, the respondents displayed gross negligence, and their delay could not be excused under any legal principle.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-high-court-order-in-telangana-land-dispute-case/

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the Second Appeal, holding that the delay of 1011 days was unjustified. This judgment reinforces the necessity of timely action in litigation and prevents abuse of the process by parties seeking indefinite extensions.

The ruling serves as a strong precedent emphasizing that statutory timelines must be respected and that courts should not lightly condone excessive delays without compelling reasons.

Petitioner Name: Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao.
Respondent Name: Reddy Sridevi & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice B. V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-12-2021.

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

Download Judgment: majji-sannemma-@-san-vs-reddy-sridevi-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-12-2021.pdf