The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary has imposed the cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on state citing enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to lapses on part of state officials.
The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has directed the state to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such a direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously.
The bench while highlighting the crucial observation stated that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day.
The court held that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause.
The bench has pointed out that there may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.
The Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner – State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 in Second Appeal No.2895 of 2019, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced for the same.
The respondent filed Civil Suit before the Civil Judge seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of lands in Survey Nos.107, 108, 115, respectively measuring an extent of 0.36, 0.40, 0.54 hectare situated at village Majhganwa, Katni, stating that that he has been in possession of the said lands since 1970 and has been given leasehold right by the Settlement Officer in the year 1989. By judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred Civil Appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge.
Stating that the land in Khasra No.107 admeasuring 0.36 hectare was registered in the name of Bhu-Dan Board, Government of M.P. and the land in Khasra Nos.108 and 115 was reserved for Charokhar, Grass, Beed or Chara as per Nistar Patrak.
The respondent was not in possession of the said lands and leasehold right was not given to him by any settlement officer and no consent was also given in this regard, the State preferred Second Appeal along with an Interlocutory Application seeking to condone the delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing the same. The High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the second appeal.
The court noted that there was enormous delay occurring at every stage i.e., from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State.
The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition with costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited by the State within a period of two weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and file proof thereof. If the amount, as directed, is not deposited by the State, the Registry shall take necessary steps for recovery of the same, in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 Of 2024
Date: November 29, 2024
