In Supreme Court Of India

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Gopi Chand Atreja

Case No. Parties involved Lawyers involved Hon’ble Bench Judgment

Date
Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent
Civil Haryana Urban Gopi Chand Adv. Ugra Adv. Gagan 1. Hon'ble Judgment
Appeal Development Atreja Shankar Gupta Mr. Justice delivered
Nos.5051- Authority(HUDA); Prasad Abhay by Hon'ble
5052 Esate Officer Manohar Mr. Justice
Of 2009 Sapre, Abhay
2. Hon'ble Manohar
Mr. Justice Sapre on
Dinesh 15/03/2019
Maheshwa
ri

Case Description

A litigant cannot seek a condolation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for filing an
appeal on the ground that their lawyer showed lackadaisical behavior in filing the appeal on time.
It is the equal duty of the appellant to see that the appeal be filed on time.

Backround

The appellant i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA) sought relief by invoking
civil appellate jurisdiction of hon’ble Supreme court after being aggrieved by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court order in which their second appeal against respondent was dismissed as
there was a delay of 1942 days in filing the appeal. High Court also rejected the appellant’s
application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of limitation act due to lack of
sufficient cause.

Law discussed
 As per Article 116 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, one can file an appeal against the
order/decree of lower court within 3 month from the date of such decree/order.
 Section 5 of Limitation act says that if in case litigant failed to file an appeal within 3
month then they need to attach an application of condonation of delay along with their
appeal explaining the sufficient cause for such delay.

Issue- Whether the High Court was justified in not condoning the delay of 1942 days in filing
the second appeal by the appellants(defendants)

Held- Supreme court concurred with the High Court order and observed that the ground taken in
the application seeking condonation of delay that their lawyer did not take timely steps, cannot
be regarded as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Apex
Court further observed that it was equally the duty of the appellants 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 on prescribed time.

Comment-

The issue of number of days of delay is immaterial, as Section 5 of Limitation Act does not
impose any certain limit to seek condonation for such delay. There are many cases where court
exercised its discretionary power and granted the condonation even for long delays where the
explanation thereof is satisfactory. Hon’able Supreme Court via this case gave a strong message
to litigants that they should take active participation in their case instead of putting blind faith on
their lawyers. Because if the court has slightest doubt that such delay would have been avoided if
the litigant was vigilant enough then court will decline any relief.