EXE. OFFICER,ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT Vs G.ARUMUGAM (D) BY LRS.
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-008577-008577 / 2014
Diary number: 13821 / 2006
Advocates: R. NEDUMARAN Vs
REVATHY RAGHAVAN
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8577 OF 2014
Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat … Appellant (s)
Versus
G. Arumugam (D) by LRs. … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
1. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the
High Court declining to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the
appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in A.S. No. 108 of
1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District,
1
REPORTABLE
Page 2
Tamil Nadu. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 267 of 1992 on
the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Tamil Nadu
for declaration and possession of the suit land. The Gram Panchayat,
defendant in the suit, contended that the suit land is Natham
Poramboke and the possession and records of title are in the name
of the Panchayat. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment
dated 11.07.1997. The complainant-first respondent herein filed first
appeal as A.S. No. 108 of 1999. The appeal was allowed and the suit
was decreed by judgment dated 14.11.2000.
2. It appears, no steps were taken by the Executive Officer of
the Panchayat at the relevant time. When the Executive Officer, at
the time of filing the second appeal, came to know of the
proceedings when steps for eviction were taken in execution, he
immediately took steps and filed an application on 26.10.2004 for
certified copy of the judgment and decree. The same were issued on
15.12.2004, and after obtaining the necessary sanction and on
completing the other procedural formalities, the second appeal was
filed on 05.01.2005 along with application for condonation of delay.
By the impugned order, the High Court declined to condone the
delay. According to the High Court, the delay is not properly
explained. It is also observed in the impugned order that though the
2
Page 3
certified copies were issued on 15.12.2004, the second appeal is
filed only on 05.01.2005 and that there is no explanation even for
that delay.
3. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant on
12.12.2006, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Shri K. G.
Ramasamy, who was working as Executive Officer of the Panchayat
at the relevant time was suspended from service w.e.f. 12.07.2002
on allegations of corruption. Be that as it may, after going through
the records and after hearing the counsel on both sides, we are
satisfied that the delay occasioned only on account of the deliberate
lapses on the part of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the
relevant time. Who else are involved in the process, is not quite
clear.
4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao
and others1, the court must always take a justice-oriented
approach while considering an application for condonation of delay.
If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part
of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by
causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should
take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever
1 (2005) 3 SCC 752
3
Page 4
huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and condone
the delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal. The case is
remitted to the High court for further consideration in accordance
with law. The Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2014 is accordingly
disposed of.
6. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.
..…….…..…………J. (M. Y. EQBAL)
..……………………J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi; January 19, 2015.
4
Page 5
5