1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8298 OF 2019  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22541 OF 2018)

THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.                      ...APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

KOTING LAMKANG ...RESPONDENT(S)

 O R D E R

HRISHIKESH ROY,J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated

27.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in M.C.

(RFA)No. 19 of 2017 in reference to RFA No. 5/2017 whereby and

where under, the learned Judge after considering the application

filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 312 days in

preferring the Regular First Appeal, has declined to condone the

delay  and  the  application  was  consequently  dismissed.   The

condonation was sought by the appellants with the projection that

they made a bonafide mistake in preferring the appeal against the

impugned order and decree dated 18.07.2016 before the wrong forum

i.e. learned District Judge, Imphal West. The Court however did

not  entertain  the  appeal  on  the  ground  that  the  Court  has  no

pecuniary  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  appeal.  Accordingly,

2

Judl.Misc. Case No. 32 of 2017 was disposed of by the learned

District  Judge  on  28.07.2017  permitting  the  appellant  to  file

appeal before the High Court of Manipur.

3. From  the  application  for  condonation  of  delay  in  RFA  No.

19/2017, it can be seen that the time spent by the appellant in

the  wrong  forum  was  44  days  (15.06.2017  to  28.07.2017).  The

learned  Judge  of  the  High  Court  found  that  the  delay  was  not

explained  for  the  other  days.  The  condonation  application  was

accordingly  rejected  with  the  observation  that  there  is  no

explanation  for  the  time  taken  by  the  appellants  between

18.07.2016 and 15.06.2017. On that basis, the Regular First Appeal

was not entertained on merits.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State  of  Manipur  as  well  as  the  learned  counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

would point out that after the decree, the execution proceedings

commenced and was finally concluded on 11.07.2018 and, therefore,

nothing survives in the RFA to be considered on merits inasmuch

as,  possession  of  the  concerned  land  was  handed  over  to  the

respondent-plaintiff.

6. The  above  contention  of  the  respondent  is  strongly

refuted  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants.  He  submits  that  the  State  of  Manipur  and  other

defendants continue to be in possession of the disputed land,

notwithstanding the decree and the execution proceedings.

7. In so far as the refusal by the High Court to condone the

3

delay of 312 days in the RFA preferred by the State of Manipur and

others, it is apparent that the appellants did prefer the appeal

at first instance on 15.06.2017 before the District Judge. But

since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after a

delay of about eleven months and there is no explanation for the

time taken by the State between 18.07.2016 and 15.06.2017, the

delay in the RFA before the High Court was not condoned. In fact

the Court found that the State has not shown as to what prevented

them from preferring the appeal before the District Judge (wrong

forum), until 15.06.2017. The Court also said that the latitude in

applying  the  standards  of  “sufficient  cause”  test  is  not

attracted, in the instant case.   

8. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the

court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the

slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way

of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a

judgment adverse to it.  Even while observing that the law of

limitation would harshly affect the party, the court felt that

the  delay  in  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State,  should  not  be

condoned.  

9. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to

the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where

individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in

turn,  would  result  in  injustice  to  the  institutional

interest of the State.  If the appeal filed by State are

lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will

4

not usually be individually affected.

10. In  the  the  instant  case  under  the  decree  passed

against  the  defendants  i.e.  the  State  of  Manipur,  the

Director  General  of  Police  and  the  Commandant  of  8th

battalion  of  the  Manipur  rifles,  the  appellants  are  to

vacate and handover the Schedule “C” and “D” land, which is

projected  to  be  an  area  of  strategic  importance  by  the

appellants.  Therefore  we  feel  that  it  is  necessary  for

making  available  to  the  appellants  a  legal  forum,  which

could consider their challenge to the decree  obtained by

the  plaintiff  from  the  Civil  Judge  (senior  division)

Chandel, in the O.S. no. 4 of 2015.  

11. In the present matter, the delay to the extent of 44

days,  in  moving  before  the  wrong  court  was  found  to  be

satisfactorily  explained  in  the  impugned  judgment.  As

regards the failure of the State to adequately explain the

remaining period of delay, our opinion is that the interest

of  justice  would  be  better  served,  if  the  appellants’

challenge to the decree of the Trial Court is allowed to be

examined on merit, by the first Appellate Court.  If the

merit of the Defendant’s RFA is not permitted to be examined

by the Appellate Court, the State will have no opportunity

to address their grievances before a higher Court. We may

also  observe  that  if  consideration  of  the  RFA  is  not

5

permitted  on  strategically  sensitive  case  involving

security, in the ultimate analysis, the public interest is

likely  to  suffer.  The  First  Appeal  should  therefore  be

considered on merit instead of the State being non-suited,

on the ground of delay.           

12. Therefore to avoid injustice to the State’s interest

and considering the special circumstances in the matter at

issue, we deem it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and interfere

with the impugned order of the High Court of Manipur. The

delay in filing the first appeal is condoned. This shall

however  be  subject  to  payment  of  costs  of  Rs.  50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand) by the appellants in the High Court.

In the result, the Regular First Appeal preferred by the

appellants is directed to be restored and considered on its

own merits.  Considering the rival contentions on possession

being  taken  over/not  taken  over  and  the  execution

proceedings  stated  to  have  concluded  on  11.07.2018,  the

issue of possession and finalisation of the execution is

made subject to the final decision of the High Court,  in

the RFA No. 5 of 2017.

13. In view of the above decision, the Executing Court is

directed to refund the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen

lakhs)  to  the  appellant-State  of  Manipur  along  with  accrued

interest deposited in the Executing Court, in pursuant to the

6

order dated 29.01.2018 passed by this Court.  

14. With the above order, the appeal is allowed.

     .....................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

.....................J. [A.S. BOPANNA]

NEW DELHI .....................J. 22nd OCTOBER, 2019 [HRISHIKESH ROY]