REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5051­5052 OF 2009

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.              ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Gopi Chand Atreja           …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and orders dated 23.01.2008 and

05.05.2008 passed by  the High Court  of  Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4110 of 2007 and

R.A.C.  No.23­C of 2008 in  R.S.A.  No.4110 of 2007

respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the

second appeal as well as the review application filed by

the appellants herein.

1

2. These appeals involve a short point as would be

clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellants herein is the Haryana Urban

Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as

“HUDA”).   They are the defendants whereas the

respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which

these appeals arise.

4.  The respondent filed a civil suit being Civil Suit

No.305 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge(Jr.

Division), Karnal against the appellants(HUDA)

claiming a  decree for  declaration with  consequential

relief of permanent and mandatory injunction in

relation to the suit land.  The suit was decreed by the

Trial Court on contest vide judgment/decree dated

01.05.2001.  

5. The appellants (defendants) felt aggrieved and

filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No.92 of 2001 in

the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. By

judgment dated 07.02.2002, the first Appellate Court

2

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

judgment/decree of the Trial Court.  

6. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second

appeal in the  High  Court of Punjab  &  Haryana at

Chandigarh.  Since the  appeal filed  by the  appellant

was barred by 1942 days, the appellants filed an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and

prayed for condoning the  delay in filing the  second

appeal.

7.  By impugned order dated 23.01.2008, the High

Court rejected the application and declined to condone

the delay. The High Court held that the cause pleaded

by the appellants for condoning the delay is not a

sufficient cause.  As a consequence, the second

appeal was also dismissed as being barred by

limitation.

8. Challenging the said order, the appellants filed a

review petition.   By order dated 05.02.2008, the High

Court also dismissed the review petition.

3

9. Against the orders dated 23.01.2008 and

05.02.2008, the appellants(defendants) have filed

these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

10. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration  in these  appeals, is  whether the  High

Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’

second appeal on the ground of limitation.  

11. In other words, the question arises for

consideration in these appeals is  whether the  High

Court was justified in not condoning the delay of 1942

days in filing the second appeal by the

appellants(defendants).

12. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for

the appellants  and Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel

for the respondent.

4

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in these appeals.

14. In our view, the delay of 1942 days in filing the

second appeal in the High Court was rightly not

condoned by the High Court for the reasons mentioned

below.  

15. First, the delay was inordinate; Second it was not

properly explained; and Third, the ground alleged in

support of application filed  under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act did not constitute a sufficient cause.

16. The appellant­HUDA is a statutory authority

created under the Haryana Urban Development

Authority  Act,  1977. It  has its  well­established  legal

department to look after the legal cases filed by HUDA

and against the HUDA in various Courts. They have

panel of lawyers to defend their interest in Courts.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been

contesting the civil suit and the first appeal since

5

inception. The appellants were, therefore, fully aware

of the adverse orders passed in the first appeal against

them.  There was, therefore,  no  justification on  their

part to keep quiet for such a long time and not to file

the appeal within 90 days or/and re­file it immediately

after curing the defects.

18. If, according to the appellants­HUDA, their

lawyer  did  not take timely steps,  which resulted in

causing delay in its filing/refiling, then, in our view, it

cannot  be  regarded as  a  sufficient  cause within  the

meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.   

19. In our view, it was equally the duty of the

appellants (their legal managers) to see that the appeal

be filed in time. If the  appellants  noticed  that their

lawyer was not taking interest in attending to the brief

in question, then they should have immediately

engaged some other lawyer to ensure that the appeal

be filed in time by another lawyer.

6

20. In our view, it is a clear case where the appellant­

HUDA,i.e., their officers,  who  were in­charge of the

legal cell failed to discharge their duty assigned to

them promptly and with due diligence despite

availability of all facilities and infrastructure.  In such

circumstances, the officers­in­charge of the case

should be made answerable for the lapse on their part

and make good  the loss  suffered by the  appellants­

HUDA.  

21. A delay of 1942 days (4 years 6 months), in our

view, is wholly inordinate and the cause pleaded for its

condonation is equally unexplained by the appellants.

In any case, the explanation given does not constitute

a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of

the Limitation Act. It was, therefore, rightly not

condoned by the High Court and we concur with the

finding of the High Court.

7

22. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly

dismissed.

         ………...................................J.        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

   …...……..................................J.                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 12, 2019

8