REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10581 OF 2013 (Arisi! "#$ "% SLP(C& NO. 23'18 OF 2012&
MANOHARAN
APPELLANT Vs.
SIVARAJAN ) ORS.
RESPONDENTS
J U D * M E N T
V.*"+,-, *"/, J.
Leave granted.
2.
This
appeal
ques questi tion onin ing g fina final l
Orde Order r
the the
is
filed
corr correc ectn tnes ess s
date dated d
21.0 21.03. 3.20 2012 12
by of
the
the the
pass passed ed
appellant
judg judgme ment nt by
the the
and and igh igh
!ourt of "erala at #rna$ulam in %&' (o. )*+ of 2011
Page 1
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
urging
various
- 2-
facts
and
legal
contentions
in
justification of his claim.
3. (ecessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appr apprec ecia iate te
the the
case case
of
the the
appe appell llan ant t
and and
also also
to
find out ,hether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
The appellant approached the respondent no. 1 a
mone money y
lend lender er
resp respon onde dent nt
no. no.
1
for for
a
agre agreed ed
loa loan to
of
give give
220 2200 000 00//-. . him him
the the
loan loan
The The in
return of eecution of a sale deed ,ith respect to 3 cents of land in re-survey (o. 111/13-1 in loc$ (o. 12 of aranalloor village by the appellant in his favour. t ,as agreed upon bet,een the parties that the respondent no. 1 ,ill reconvey the property in favour of the appellant on repayment of the loan. The appellant accordingly eecuted sale deed (o. 4*4 of 2001 at sub %egistrar5s office at Ooruttambalam ,ith
respect
to
3
cents
of
land
in
%e-survey
(o.111/13-1 in loc$ no.12 of aranalloor village in
Page 2
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 3-
favo favour ur
no.1 no.1. .
of
eec eecut uted ed favour
resp respon onde dent nt an
of
agre agreem emen ent t the
of
The The
resp respon onde dent nt
rere-conv convey eyan ance ce
appellant
regarding
no. no.
deed deed
the
1 in
above
mentioned property on the same day.
6.
The
learned
senior
counsel
r.
asanth
%.
appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appe appell llan ant t time times s
appr approa oach ched ed
,ith ,ith mone money y
for for
the the
resp respon onde dent nt
no.1 no.1
re-c re-con onve veyi ying ng the the
seve severa ral l
prop proper erty ty in
favour of the appellant as ,as agreed upon bet,een them but the respondent no. 1 evaded from doing so.
4.
t
is
also
resp respon onde dent nt
no.1 no.1
convey conveyanc ance e and and
3
sold sold
,ith ,ithou out t
the
case
inst instea ead d
of
of
issu issuin ing g
the proper property ty
the the
$no, $no,le ledg dge e
the
to of
appellant a
deed deed
%espon %esponden dent t the the
of
that rere-
nos. nos.
appe appell llan ant. t.
2
The The
appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent no.1 requesting him to appear before the sub %egistrar5s office
for
the
eecution
of
re-conveyance
deed
regarding the plaint schedule property to ,hich the respondent no. 1 did not oblige. The appellant then
Page 3
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 4-
filed a suit being O7 (o. 161/200* before the !ourt of sub 8udge (eyyattin$ara for mandatory injunction for
declaration
of
the
sale
deed
eecuted
by
%espondent no.1 in favour of %espondent nos. 2 and 3 as null and void for eecution of re-conveyance deed in his favour and also for consequential reliefs. The suit suit ,as valued valued at
3039 3039)*/ )*/- and the court fee fee ,as
valued valued at
2+*9*/-. 2+*9*/-. The The appellant appellant paid paid 1/10 1/10th of the
cour court t
i.e. i.e.
fee fee
2++0 2++0//-
at the
time time of
fili filing ng
the the
suit. The !ourt of sub 8udge (eyyattin$ara granted injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the respondents
from
carrying
out
ne,
construction
activities including the parts of the plaint schedule property until further orders.
). The court of sub 8udge (eyyattin$ara heard the appl applic icat atio ion n
for for
ete etens nsio ion n
of
time time
soug sought ht
by
the the
appellant for paying the balance court fee. o,ever the application ,as rejected and the file ,as closed by the learned sub 8udge. The appellant then filed %egular &irst 'ppeal (o. )*+ of 2011 along ,ith an
Page 4
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 5-
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The igh !ourt dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal ,as not eplained by the appellant and consequently dismissed the %egular &irst 'ppeal file filed d that that
by the the
dela delay y
in
the the
appe appell llan ant. t.
appe appell llan ant t fili filing ng
sustai sustainab nable le
since since
has has
the the the
The The not not
igh igh give given n
%egu %egula lar r
!our !ourt5 t5s s any any
&irs &irst t
appell appellant ant
has
opin opinio ion n
grou ground nd
'ppe 'ppeal al
is
for for not not
catego categoric ricall ally y
claimed that he ,as not a,are of the rejection of the the
suit suit
of
the the
appe appell llan ant t
for for
dela delaye yed d
paym paymen ent t
of
court fee by the learned sub 8udge.
*. n the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the follo,ing points ,ould arise for our consideration: 1.;hether the learned sub 8udge ,as justified in rejecting the suit for non- payment of court fee<
Page 5
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
2.;as
the the
- 6-
appe appell llan ant t
enti entitl tled ed
to
cond condon onat atio ion n
of delay for non- payment of court fee by the learned sub 8udge< 3.;h .;hether
the
reject rejecting ing
igh
the
!ourt
applic applicati ation on
,as for
right
in
condon condonati ation on
of delay filed by the appellant against the decision
of
the
learned
sub
judge
,ho
rejected the suit of the appellant for nonpayment of court fee< 6.;hat 6. ;hat Order< Order<
'ns,er to =oint no. 1
+.
7ection
169
of
the
!ivil
=rocedure
!ode
prescribes a discretionary po,er ,hich empo,ers the !ourt to allo, a party to ma$e up the deficiency of court fee payable on plaint appeals applications revie, of judgment etc. This 7ection also empo,ers the !ourt to retrospectively validate insufficiency of stam stamp p
duti duties es etc. etc.
t is
also also
a
usua usual l
prac practi tice ce
that the !ourt provides an opportunity to the party
Page 6
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 7-
to pay court fee ,ithin a stipulated time on failure of
,hic ,hich h
the the
!our !ourt t
dism dismis isse ses s
the the
appe appeal al. .
n
the the
present case the appellant filed an application for etens etension ion of
time time
for remitt remitting ing the balanc balance e
court court
fee ,hich ,as rejected by the learned sub 8udge. t is the claim of the appellant that he ,as unable to pay
the
requisite
amount
of
court
fee
due
to
financial difficulties. t is the usual practice of the court to use this discretion in favour of the litigating parties unless there are manifest grounds of mala fide. The !ourt ,hile etending the time for or eempting from the payment of court fee must ensure
bona
!oncealment appl applic icat atio ion n
fide of for for
of
such
material ete etens nsio ion n
of
discretionary
po,er.
fact
filing
date date
,hile for for
paym paymen ent t
of
court fee can be a ground for dismissal. o,ever in the present case no opportunity ,as given by the learned sub 8udge for payment of court fee by the appellant financ financial ial
,hich
he
,as
constr constrain aints. ts.
unable
ence ence
the
to
pay
decisi decision on
due
to
of
the
Page 7
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 8-
learned sub 8udge is ,rong and is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
'ns,er to =oint no.2
9. n the case of S$,$ "% Bi,r ) Ors. . ,4s,r Pr,s Pr ,s,/ ,/
Si! Si !
)
Ar. A r.1
,
it
,as ,as
held held
tha that
po,er o,er
to
condone the delay in approaching the !ourt has been conf confer erre red d
upo upon
subs substa tant ntia ial l
the the
just justic ice e
!ou !ourts rts to
to
part partie ies s
enab enable le by
them them
to
disp dispos osin ing g
do the the
cases on merit. The relevant paragraphs of the case read as under:
>11. =o,er to condone the delay in approa approachi ching ng the !ourt !ourt has been been confer conferred red upon the !ourts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. This !ourt in !ollec !ollector tor Land Land 'cquis 'cquisiti ition on 'nantn 'nantnag ag v. st. "atiji ?19+*@LL8 400 7! held that the epression Asufficient causeA employed by the the legi legisl slat atur ure e in the the Limi Limita tati tion on 'ct 'ct is adequately elastic to enable the !ourts to appl apply y the the la, la, in a mean meanin ingf gful ul mann manner er ,hich ,hich subser subserves ves the ends ends of justic justice-t e-that hat being being the life life purpos purpose e for the eiste eistence nce of the institution of !ourts. t ,as furt furthe her r obse observ rved ed that that a libe libera ral l appr approa oach ch 1
(2000) 9 SCC 94
Page 8
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 9-
is adopted on principle as it is realised that: 1. Ordinarily Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. %efusing to condone condone delay can result in a meri merito tori riou ous s matt matter er bein being g thro thro,n ,n out at the very threshold and cause of justice justice being defeated. defeated. 's against this ,hen delay is condoned condoned the highest highest that can can hap happen pen is that that a caus cause e ,oul ,ould d be deci decide ded d on mer merits its afte after r hear hearin ing g the the parties. 3. A#very dayAs delay must be eplainedA does not mean that a pedant pedantic ic approa approach ch should should be made. made. ;hy not every hourAs delay every secondAs delay< The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 6. ;hen substantial justice and tech techni nica cal l cons consid ider erat atio ions ns are are pitt pitted ed against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be pref prefer erre red d for for the the othe other r side side cann cannot ot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 4. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on accoun account t of culpab culpable le neglig negligenc ence e or on account of mala fides. ' litigant does not not stan stand d to bene benefi fit t by reso resort rtin ing g to delay. n fact he runs a serious ris$. ). t must be grasped that judiciary judiciary is respected not on account of its po,er
Page 9
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 10-
to legaliBe injustice on technical grou ground nds s but but beca becaus use e it is capa capabl ble e of removi removing ng injust injustice ice and is epect epected ed to do so. CCC
CCC
C CC
12. 'fter referring to the various judgments reported in (e, ndia nsurance !o. Ltd. v. 7hanti isra D19*)E 2 7!% 2)) rij rij nde nder r 7ing 7ingh h v. "ans "anshi hi %am %am ?191+@L% 64 =.!. 96 96 7ha$untala Fevi 8ain v. "untal "umari D19)9E1 7!% 100) !oncord of ndia nsurance !o. Ltd. v. (irmala Fevi D19*9E 11+ T% 40*?7!@ Lala ata Fin v. '. (ara (araya yan nan D19* D19*0E 0E 2 7!% 7!% 90 90 7tat 7tate e of "erala v. #.". "uriyipe 19+1 ?7upp@7!! *2 *2 ilavi Fevi v. Fina (ath ?19+2@3 7!! 3))a O.=. O.=. "athpa "athpalia lia v. La$hmi La$hmir r 7ingh 7ingh '% 19+6 19+6 7! 1*66 !ollector Land 'cquisition v. "atiji ?19+*@ LL8 400 7! =rabha v. %am %am =ar$ =ar$as ash h "alr "alra a 19+* 7upp?1@7!! 399 399 G. %amego,da ajor v. 7p. Land 'cquisition Officer D19++E 3 7!% 19+ 7cheduled !aste !o-op. Land O,ning 7ociety Ltd. Ltd. v. Hnio Hnion n of ndi ndia a '% '% 1991 1991 7! *30 *30 inod ihari ihari 7ingh 7ingh v. Hnion of ndia '% 1993 7! 1264 7ha$ambari I !o. v. Hnion of ndia '% 1992 7! 2090 %am "ishan v. H.=. 7%T! 1996 7upp?2@7!! 40* and ;arlu v. Gangotribai '% 1996 7! 6)) this !ourt in 7tate of aryana v. !handra ani 2002?163@ #LT 269?7!@ held J
KThe epression Asufficient cau se A shou should ld the therefo refore re be cons consid ider ere ed ,it ,ith prag pragma mati tism sm in just justic icee-or orie ient nted ed proc proces ess s approach rather than the technical
Page 10
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 11-
detention of sufficient case for eplaining every dayAs delay. The factors ,hich ,hich are peculi peculiar ar to and charac character terist istic ic of the functi functioni oning ng of pragma pragmatic tic approa approach ch inju injust sti ice orien riente ted d proc proces ess. s. The The !our !ourt t should decide the matters on merits unless the case case is hopele hopelessl ssly y ,ithou ,ithout t merit. merit. (o separate standards to determine the cause laid by the 7tate vis-a-vis pri va te liti litiga gan nt coul could d be laid laid to prov prove e stric trict t standards of sufficient cause. The Gove Govern rnme ment nt at appr approp opri riat ate e leve level l shou should ld constitute legal cells to eamine the case cases s ,het ,hethe her r any any lega legal l prin princi cipl ples es are are invo involv lve ed for for deci decisi sion on by the the !our !ourt ts or ,hether cases require adjustment and shou should ld auth author oriB iBe e the the offi office cers rs to ta$e ta$e a deci decisi sion on to give give appr approp opri riat ate e perm permis issi sion on for for sett settle leme ment nt. . n the the even event t of deci decisi sion on to file file the the appe appeal al need needed ed prom prompt pt acti action on should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses if any. #qually the 7tate cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual ,ould al,ays be quic quic$ $ in ta$i ta$ing ng the the deci decisi sion on ,het ,hethe her r he ,ould pursue the remedy by ,ay of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured ,hile 7tate is an impers impersona onal l machin machinery ery ,or$in ,or$ing g throug through h its officers or servants.5 To the same effect is the judgment of this !ourt in 7pecial Tehsildar Land 'cquisition "erala v. ".M. 'yisumma '% 199) 7! 2*40. 13. 13. n ?1994@)
(and (and 7!!
"is "ishore hore v. 7t 7tat ate e )16 this !ourt
of =u =unj njab ab under the
Page 11
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 12-
peculiar circumstances of the case cond condon oned ed the the dela delay y in appr approa oach chin ing g this this !ourt of about 31 years. n (. ala$rishnan v. . "rishnamurthy 200+?22+@#LT 1)2?7!@ this !ourt held that the purpose of Limitation 'ct ,as not to destroy the rights. t is founded on public policy fiing a life span for the legal remedy for the general ,elfare. The primary function of a !ourt is to adju adjudi dica cate te disp disput utes es bet, bet,ee een n the the part partie ies s and and to adva advanc nce e subs substa tant ntia ial l just justic ice. e. The The time limit fied for approaching the !ourt in different situations is not because on the epiry of such time a bad cause ,ould transform into a good cause. The object of prov provid idin ing g lega legal l reme remedy dy is to repa repair ir the the dama damage ge caus caused ed by reas reason on of lega legal l inju injury ry. . f the the epl eplan anat atio ion n give given n does does not not smac smac$ $ mala fides or is not sho,n to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy the !ourt must sho, utmost consideration to the suitor. n this conte contet t it ,as observ observed ed in 200+?2 200+?22+@ 2+@ #LT 1)2?7!@ : t is aiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the !ourt. 7ection 4 of the Limi Limita tati tion on 'ct 'ct does does not not say say that that such such disc discre reti tion on can can be eer eerci cise sed d only if the delay is ,ithin a cert certai ain n limi limit. t. Leng Length th of dela delay y is no mat matter ter acce accept ptab abil ilit ity y of the the eplanation is the only criterion. 7ome 7ometi time mes s dela delay y of the the shor shorte test st range may be uncontainable due to a ,ant of acceptable eplanation ,her ,herea eas s in cert certai ain n oth other case cases s delay of a very long range can be
Page 12
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 13-
condoned as the eplanation thereof is sat satisfa isfact ctor ory. y. Once Once the the !our !ourt t accepts the eplanation as suff suffic icie ient nt it is the the resu result lt of positive eercise of discretion and normally the superior !ourt should not disturb such finding much less in revisional revisional jurisdictio jurisdiction n unless the the eer eerci cise se of disc discre reti tion on ,as ,as on ,holly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. ut it is a diff differ eren ent t matt matter er ,hen ,hen the the firs first t !ourt refuses to condone the delay. n such such case cases s the the supe superi rior or !our !ourt t ,ould be free to consider the cause sho,n for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior !ourt to come to its o,n finding even untram untrammel melled led by the conclu conclusio sion n of the lo,er !ourt.N
10.
n
the
case
in
hand
it
is
clear
from
th e
evidence on record that the appellant could not pay cour court t
fee fee
due due
to
fina financ ncia ial l
diff diffic icul ulty ty
beca becaus use e
of
,hich his suit got rejected. t is also pertinent to note that the appellant had moved the !ourt claiming his substantive right to his property. The appellant faced ,ith the situation li$e this did not deserve the dismissal of the original suit by the !ourt for non- payment of court fee. e rather deserved more
Page 13
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 14-
compassionate attention from the !ourt of sub 8udge in the light of the directive principle laid do,n in 'rticle 39' of the !onstitution of ndia ,hich is equally applicable to district judiciary. t is the duty of the courts to see that justice is meted out to people irrespective of their socio economic and cultural rights or gender identity.
11. 11.
&urt &urthe her r
7ect 7ectio ion n
12?h 12?h@ @
of
the the
Lega Legal l
7erv 7ervic ices es
'uthorities 'ct 19+* provides that every person ,ho has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this 'ct if that person is: >in >in rece receip ipt t of annu annual al inco income me less less than than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the 7tate Government if the case is before a court othe other r than than the the 7upr 7uprem eme e !our !ourt t and and less less than rupees t,elve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the !entral Government if the case is before the 7upreme !ourtN
&urther
7ection
12
of
the
"erala
7tate
Le ga l
7ervices 'uthorities %ules 199+ states that: >12. >12. 'ny 'ny pers person on ,hos ,hose e annu annual al inco income me from from all all sour source ces s does does not not ece eceed ed %upe %upees es T,el T,elve ve
Page 14
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 15-
Thousand shall be entitled to leg al services under clause ?h@ of 7ection 12 of the 'ctN.
Ther Theref efo ore re affidavit
of
subj subjec ect t his
appell appellant ant could could the
Fistri Fistrict ct
income
have have
Legal Legal
to
been been
the the
subm submi issio ssion n court
,aiver ,aivered ed
7ervic 7ervices es
or
'uthor 'uthority ity
fee
of of
an the
provid provided ed
by
instea instead d
of
rejection of the suit.
M,,r,s$r, V. 12. &urther in the case of S$,$ "% M,,r,s$r, M,#,i Pr,!,6i V,si ,/ O$rs27 it has been held $,$:
>1*. >1*. ,e have have to cons consid ider er the the comb combin ined ed effect of 'rticle 21 and 'rticle 39' of the !ons !onsti titu tuti tion on of ndi ndia. a. The The righ right t to free free lega legal l aid aid and and spee speedy dy tria trial l are are guar guaran ante teed ed fundam fundament ental al rights rights under under 'rticl 'rticle e 21 of the !onstitution. The preamble to the !ons !onsti titu tuti tion on of ndi ndia a assu assure res s Ajus Ajusti tice ce social social econom economic ic and politi political calA. A. 'rticl 'rticle e 39' 39' of the the !ons !onsti titu tuti tion on prov provid ides es Aequ Aequal al just justic iceA eA and and Afre Afree e lega legal l aidA aidA. . The The 7tat 7tate e shall secure that the operation of the lega legal l syst system em prom promot otes es just justic ice. e. t mean means s just justic ice e acco accord rdin ing g to la,. la,. n a demo democr crat atic ic polity governed by rule of la, it should be the main concern of the 7tate to have a proper proper legal legal system system. . 'rticl 'rticle e 39' mandates 2
(1995) 5 SCC 730
Page 15
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 16-
that the 7tate shall provide free legal aid by suit suitab able le legi legisl slat atio ion n or sche scheme mes s or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other principles contained disabilities. The
in 'rti 'rticl cle e 39' 39' are are fund fundam amen enta tal l and and cast cast a duty on the 7tate to secure that the oper operat ati ion of the the lega legal l syst system em prom promo otes tes justice on the basis of equal opportunities and further mandates to provide free legal aid in any ,ay-by legi legisl slat atio ion n or othe other, r,is ise e so that that just justic ice e is not denied to any citiBen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The crucial ,ord ,ords s are are ?the ?the oblig bligat atio ion n of the 7ta 7tate@ te@ to provide free legal aid 'by suitable legislation legislation or by schemes' of 'in any other that oppo opport rtun unit itie ies s for for secu securi ring ng way', so that
just justic ice e are are not not deni denied ed to any any citi citiBe Ben n by disabilities. s. reas reason on of econ econom omic ic or other disabilitie ?#mphasis supplied@.N
13. 13.
&urt &urthe her r
ndia ndia
'rti 'rticl cle e
provid provides es
just justic ice e
to
for
the the
39' 39'
of
holist holistic ic
liti litiga gati ting ng
the the
!ons !onsti titu tuti tion on
approa approach ch par parties ties. .
of
in
impart imparting ing
t
not not
only only
includes providing free legal aid via appointment of counsel
for
the
litigants
ensuri ensuring ng
that that
justic justice e
is
but
also
not denied denied to
includes litiga litigatin ting g
parties due to financial difficulties. Therefore in the light of the legal principle laid do,n by this
Page 16
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 17-
!ourt the appellant deserved ,aiver of court fee so that that
he
invo involv lved ed
coul could d his his
cont contes est t
his his
subs substa tant ntiv ive e
clai claim m
righ right. t.
on
The The
meri merit t !our !ourt t
,hic ,hich h of
sub sub
8udge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant due due
to
nonnon-
paym paymen ent t
of
cour court t
fee. fee.
enc ence e
,e
set set
aside the findings and the decision of the !ourt of sub 8udge and condone the delay of the appellant in non-payment of court fee ,hich resulted in rejection of his suit.
'ns,er to =oint no. 3
16. aving ans,ered =oint nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant ,e are inclined to ans,er point no. 3 as ,ell in his favour.
n
the
case
of M#s
C"r+"r,$i" L$/. ,/ Ors
3
.
Di
.
U.P.
P"r
it ,as held as under:
>14. n the application filed by her for condon condonati ation on of delay delay the 'ppell 'ppellant ant made made copious references to the civil suit the ,rit petition and the special l ea ve 3
2013 (9) SCALE 640
Page 17
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 18-
peti petiti tion on file filed d by her her and and the the fact fact that that the the comp compla lain int t file filed d by her her ,as ,as admi admitt tted ed after considering the issue of limitation. 7he also pleaded that the cause for claimi claiming ng compen compensat sation ion ,as contin continuin uing. g. The (ational !ommission completely ignored the fact that the 'ppellant is not ,e ll educ educat ated ed and and she she had had thro throug ugho hout ut reli relied ed upon the legal advice tendered to her. 7he first filed civil suit ,hich as mentioned above ,as dismissed due to non payment of deficient court fees. 7he then filed ,rit petition before the igh !ourt and special leave petition before this !ourt for issue of a mand mandam amus us to the the %esp %espon onde dent nts s to pay pay the the amou amount nt of comp compen ensa sati tion on but but did did not not succ succee eed. d. t can can reas reason onab ably ly be pres presum umed ed that substantial time ,as consumed in avai availi ling ng thes these e reme remedi dies es. . t ,as ,as neit neithe her r the pleaded case of %espondent (o. 1 nor any material ,as produced before the (ational !ommission to sho, that in purs pursui uin ng reme remedi dies es befo before re the the judi judici cia al forums forums the 'ppell 'ppellant ant had not acted acted bona bona fide. fide. Theref Therefore ore it ,as an eminen eminently tly fit case for eercise of po,er under 7ection 26-'?2@ of the 'ct. Hnfortunately the (ational !ommission rejected the 'ppe 'ppell lla antAs ntAs pray prayer er for for cond condon onat atio ion n of delay on a totally flimsy ground that she had not been able to substantiate the assertion about her having made representation to the %espondents for grant of compensation.N
14. n the case in hand the igh !ourt vide its impu impugn gned ed
judg judgme ment nt
date dated d
21.0 21.03. 3.20 2012 12
held held
that that
the the
Page 18
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
appell appellant ant dela delay y
in
has
fili filing ng
igh igh !our !ourt t has
not
is
- 19-
provid provided ed
the the
suffic sufficien ient t
appe appeal al. .
This This
unsu unsust stai aina nabl ble e
categorically
stated
deci decisi sion on
in la,. la,. that
ground grounds s
he
The The
of
for the the
appe appell llan ant t
,ent
to
his
advocate5s office at (eyyattin$ara on 26.04.2011 to enquire about the status of the suit. is advocate informed him that the learned sub 8udge has rejected the the
suit suit
on
11.+ 11.+.2 .200 00+ +
for for
nonnon-pa paym ymen ent t
of
bala balanc nce e
court fee. The advocate claimed that he has informed the same to the appellant through a postal card but the appellant claims that the same has not reached him
and
he
appl applic icat atio ion n
,as for for
under
the
ete etens nsio ion n
impression
of
time time
for for
that paym paymen ent t
his of
court fee ,ill be allo,ed by the learned sub 8udge. e
further
claimed
that
he
had
applied
for
procurement of the certified copy of the decision of the learned sub 8udge on the same day.
1). The learned senior counsel r. ".=. "ylasantha =ill =illay ay
appe appear arin ing g
on
beha behalf lf
of
the the
resp respon onde dent nts s
alleged that the appeal of the appellant before this
Page 19
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 20-
court is based on ,rong and frivolous grounds. The material
produced
cont conten enti tion on
is
by
tota totall lly y
them base based d
in on
support the the
of
meri merit t
th ei r of
the the
case. 7ince ,e are not deciding the merit of the case case
the the
mate materi rial al prod produc uced ed by the the
resp respon onde dent nts s
in
suppor support t of their their conten contentio tion n become becomes s irrele irrelevan vant. t. ;e have condoned the delay in paying the court fee by the appellant ,hile ans,ering point nos. 1 and 2. ;e see no reason in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the igh !ourt as ,ell.
1*. n vie, of the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment passed by the igh !ourt is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside as per the principle laid do,n by this !ourt in as much the igh !ourt erred erred in reject rejecting ing the applic applicati ation on for condon condonati ation on of
dela delay y
file filed d
by
the the
appe appell llan ant. t.
;e
acco accord rdin ingl gly y
condone the delay in filing the appeal in the igh !ourt as ,ell.
Page 20
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 21-
'ns,er to =oint no. 6
1+. n vie, of the reasons assigned ,hile ans,ering point nos. 12 and 3 in favour of the appellant the impugned judgment passed by the igh !ourt is set aside and the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is allo,ed. Therefore ,e allo, the appeal by setting aside the judgments and decree of
both both
the the
tria trial l
cour court t
and and
the the
igh igh
!our !ourt t
and and
remand the case bac$ to the trial court for payment of court fee ,ithin + ,ee$s. f for any reason it is not possible for the appellant to pay the court fee in such event he is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority and Talu$ Legal 7ervices !ommittee see$ing for grant of legal aid for sanction of court fee amount payable on
the
suit
before
the
trial
court.
f
such
application is filed the same shall be considered by such committee and the same shall be facilitated to the appellant to get the right of the appellant adju adjudi dica cate ted d
by
the the
tria trial l
cour court t
by
secu securi ring ng
equa equal l
Page 21
C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012
- 22-
justice
provided
under
of
read read
as
!ons !onsti titu tuti tion on
ndi ndia a
'rticle ,ith ,ith
39'
the the
of
prov provis isio ion n
the of
7ection 12?h@ of the Legal 7ervices 'uthorities 'ct read read
,ith ,ith
%egu %egula lati tion on
of
"era "erala la
7tat 7tate. e.
;e
furt furthe her r
direct the trial court to adjudicate on the rights of the parties on merit and dispose of the matter as epeditiously as possible.
19.
The
appeal
obse observ rvat atio ions ns and and
is
allo,ed
in
dire direct ctio ions ns give given n
terms as
abov above e
of
th e
to the the
trial court. There ,ill be no order as to costs.
J. SUDHANSU J9OTI MUHOPADHA9A:
J. V. *OPALA *O;DA: N D-i7 N"4r 257 2013
Page 22
