Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 995 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Jalim Gadariya

2002-10-29

S.P.KHARE

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a revision by the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh against the order by which its appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation. ( 2. ) PLAINTIFF Jalim instituted Civil Suit No. 22-A of 1993 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhatarpur for declaration of title to certain lands which were recorded in the revenue records as belonging to the State. The suit was filed against two defendants Maha Prasad and the State of Madhya Pradesh. It proceeded ex parte. The case of the State is that the summons was not served upon it. Defendant No. 1 Maha Prasad did not contest the claim of the plaintiff rather admitted it. The ex parte decree was passed on 30-6-1993. The appeal against that decree was filed by the State on 7-2-1994. The SDO filed an affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that the summons were not served and he had no knowledge of the suit or the decree. He came to know about the decree when the Patwari informed him about this decree. ( 3. ) THE Appellate Court has held that there is not sufficient ground for condonation for the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal from the date of the decree. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the delay ought to have been condoned. The SDO in his affidavit swears that he had no knowledge of the decree and it is still to be inquired into whether the summons of the suit were duly served upon the authorised officer of the State. The Appellate Court has taken a very technical and pedantic view of the matter. The Appellate Court should have closely examined how the land which is recorded in the name of the State is being claimed by the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession against the State cannot be accepted lightly unless there is definite evidence on that count and all the ingredients of adverse possession are proved. This was a case which should have been decided on merits by the Appellate Court, It should not have been thrown out on the technical ground of limitation. ( 5. The plea of adverse possession against the State cannot be accepted lightly unless there is definite evidence on that count and all the ingredients of adverse possession are proved. This was a case which should have been decided on merits by the Appellate Court, It should not have been thrown out on the technical ground of limitation. ( 5. ) THE Supreme Court has held in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, AIR 1996 SC 1623 that Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The Supreme Court generally adopts a liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbuted with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. Decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the file from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristics of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. Litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. Litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal the needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. ( 6. ) IN M. K. Prasad v. A. Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497 , it has been held that in construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court has to keep in mind that discretion in the section has to be exercised to "advance substantial justice". The Court has a discretion to condone or refuse to condone the delay as is evident from the words "may be admitted" used in the Section. It is again reiterated in Vedbai v. Shantaram, AIR 2001 SC 2582 , that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. The Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. It is further laid down in Union of India v. Manager, Jain and Associates, AIR 2001 SC 809 , that the delay ought to be condoned, particularly where party seeking condonation is the Government. The decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Abhay Chand Bothra, (2000) 9 SCC 292 , also shows that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberally considered where the State is the applicant. ( 7. ) THE revision is allowed. The decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Abhay Chand Bothra, (2000) 9 SCC 292 , also shows that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberally considered where the State is the applicant. ( 7. ) THE revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Court is set aside and it is directed that it will decide the appeal on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 16-12-2002.