State Can’t Be Given Undue Indulgence As Compared To Ordinary Litigant Especially In Matters Of Limitation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which allowed an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Single Bench (Gwalior Bench), which allowed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “In the present case, the contentions of the appellant, on first blush appears to be attractive, inasmuch as the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation. There is no doubt that all parties, whether or not State under Article 123 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.”
The Bench further emphasised that there can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which must be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.
AOR Arjun Garg represented the Appellant while AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
In 2012, the Appellant filed a Civil Suit before the Trial Court for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction in respect of a property, contending that an Order was passed in his favour wherein he was allotted the property. Thereafter, by mistake, in place of the Appellant’s name i.e., Inder Singh, Ishwar Singh’s name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. Such mistake was rectified on an Application before the Additional Collector, Gwalior. Pursuantly, the Appellant obtained a loan from a bank for digging a well in the said property and it was averred in the Suit that the Respondent-State had declared the land to be ‘Government Land’, without any prior notice to the Appellant. The State countered the pleadings of the Appellant before the Trial Court by denying that the Appellant was ever in possession of the land.
The Trial Court dismissed the Suit, following which the Appellant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was allowed. The Trial Court’s Judgment was overruled and the Appellant was declared as the landlord of the property. The State filed a Review Petition but it was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, as the delay in filing the same was not explained with any sufficient cause. Thereafter, the State preferred a Second Appeal, seeking condonation of delay in the High Court, which condoned the delay and ordered for listing the Second Appeal for hearing on admission as well as application for stay. Challenging this, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In the present case, the filing of the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was with a delay of two years and four months and the Second Appeal before the High Court was delayed by about a year from the date of the dismissal of the Review Petition i.e., 30.09.2019. Pausing for a moment, it is necessary to indicate that in the present case, the dispute over title of a land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State.”
The Court added that when the land was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in the possession of the State, the claim of the State that it is government land cannot be summarily discarded.
“We find, upon a perusal of the record, that the appellant had, in fact, filed an execution case for taking over possession of the land, which would demonstrate clearly the admitted position that he was not in possession thereof. Thus, the matter would, in our considered view, require adjudication on its own merits due to various reasons, inter alia, the fact that a new district has been formed after the initial claim of the appellant of being allotted the land in the years 1975-1976/1977-1978”, it said.
The Court further remarked that the delay of 1537 days reckoned from when the First Appellate Court decreed the Suit, includes 2 years and 4 months delay in filing a Review Petition and of about a year thereafter for filing the Second Appeal before the High Court, which, relate to land claimed by the State as government land and in its possession, persuade it to not interfere with the impugned Order.
“Considering the above pronouncements and on an overall circumspection, we are of the opinion that the Second Appeal deserves to be heard, contested and decided on merits. However, a note of caution is sounded to the respondent to exhibit promptitude in like matters henceforth and in futuro, failing which the Court may not be as liberal”, it also observed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal, upheld the impugned Order, and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State.
Cause Title- Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 382)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Arjun Garg, Advocates Kriti Gupta, Sagun Srivastava, and Saaransh Shukla.
Respondent: AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocates Sarthak Raizada Ga, and Rashmi Singhania.
