On May 13, the Supreme Court delivered a crucial ruling on the issue of condoning delay in filing appeals, overturning the Madras High Court’s decision. The High Court had allowed a 1,116-day delay in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the delay should not be condoned out of generosity without a valid explanation from the litigant.
Read Also:- Non-Public Servant Can Be Convicted For Abetting Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act
The case concerned a litigant who had previously exhausted remedies under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which allows a party to apply for setting aside an ex-parte decree. This application had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in an earlier case. Despite this, the litigant filed a fresh appeal before the High Court, seeking to challenge the ex-parte decree.
"It is impermissible for a litigant, against whom an ex-parte order was passed, to file an appeal challenging the ex-parte order by re-agitating issues that were previously raised and dismissed in separate proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC."
Read Also:-Justice Bela Trivedi to Retire Early: Last Working Day in Supreme Court Set for May 16
In its judgment, the Supreme Court pointed out that the delay could only be condoned if the litigant demonstrated that the summons had not been served or that there was a valid reason for their failure to attend the proceedings. Since the summons had been served and no sufficient cause was provided for their absence, the Court deemed the High Court's decision to condone the delay unjustified.
The Court further highlighted that the litigant had repeated the same grounds for delay that had already been rejected in the earlier case. The Court observed:
"Such a repetition of grounds already scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process of law."
The Court reiterated that the core principle when considering delay is to first assess the bona fides of the explanation provided by the party seeking condonation. It emphasized that the court should not condone delay out of mere generosity and that substantial justice should not come at the cost of prejudice to the opposing party.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Scraps 100-Point System for Senior Advocate Designation: Key Reasons Explained
"Delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party."
In this case, since the litigant failed to provide reasonable grounds for the delay, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order that had condoned the delay.
Case Title: Thirunagalingam Versus Lingeswaran & Anr.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Velan , AOR Mr. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv.
