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