____BASUDEB DAS, KOLKATA___
“IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SC TO CONDONE DELAY WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ?" C H MAHADEVAN.
CORRECTLY POINTED OUT. PENDING TEXT OF JUDGEMENT NOT YET PUBLISHED IN SC SITE, LET US EXAMINE THE SITUATION.
LIC/GOI APPEALED THROUGH SLP WITH PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY:
SECTION. XV
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 16755- 16758/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2011 in DBCRP No. 86/2011 & DBCRP No. 87/2011 & DBCSA No. 493/2010 & DBCSA No. 494/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)
LIC OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANR ETC. Respondent(s)
OFFICE REPORT
The petition above-mentioned has been filed on 12.9.2013 against the Orders dated 21/01/2011 and 19/8/2011 in DBCRP No. 86/2011 & DBCRP No. 87/2011 & DBCSA No. 493/2010 & DBCSA No. 494/2010 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner has filed two applications one for condonation of delay of 844 days against order dated 21.1.2011 and delay of 634 days against order dated 19.8.11 in filing SLP and another for condonation of delay of 3 days in refiling SLP and which is barred by time by total days of 847 and 637 days respectively. “
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 :
“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be, admitted after the prescribed period, if the
appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation: The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or
judgement of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient
cause within the meaning of this section.”
SO CONDONATION IS POSSIBLE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL - BUT NOTICE TO OPPONENT/DEFENDANT IS A MUST AS IS EVIDENT IN THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE FOLLOWING CASE :-
Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam
[Civil Appeal Nos. 4838 4840 of 2012 [arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.20349 20351 of 2007]
38. On the facts of the case on hand, the High Court recorded its conclusion as follows: "the Subordinate Judge has erred in allowing the I.A. Nos.75 and 76 of 2004 by exercising the discretion without analysing the bona fides of the plaintiffs case and without giving notice to the defendant."
....................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
.....................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)
SO, TO MY MIND, BEFORE CONVERTING SLP TO CIVIL APPEAL AFTER CONDONING DELAY, NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO DEFENDANT ie KML ASTHANA FOR HEARING. LET US WAIT AND SEE THE DECISION OF SC FROM 30TH PROCEEDINGS.