The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting condonation of delay, holding that substantial justice should prevail over strict procedural limitations.
The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a trial court decree in a suit concerning ownership of property by adverse possession. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of information by the appellants due to procedural gaps and reliance on counsel.
The suit involved declaration and injunction over disputed property ownership. The original defendant, did not effectively contest the suit after filing written statements, resulting in a Trial Court decree in favour of plaintiffs, passed on 31 January 2000. The appellants became aware of this only in February 2002, after which they promptly filed the appeal and application for condonation of delay. The heirs argued the delay in pursuing appeal had sufficient cause, but the District Judge rejected the condonation application. The instant appeal challenged the aforementioned rejection.
Counsel for appellants argued that litigants depend heavily on their counsel and that procedural rules should not defeat justice when bona fide grounds exist. Respondents contended that delay was inordinate and negligence should bar relief.
The Bench comprising Justice M. W. Chandwani reiterated that procedure is the handmaid of justice and delay should be condoned liberally if explained adequately. The Court referred Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) vs. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531 where in it was held that a justice-oriented approach over technicalities. It also noted that certain negligence by counsel may not always bar relief if litigants act diligently otherwise.
The Court allowed condonation of delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the District Bar Association, Gondia. It set aside the impugned judgment rejecting delay condonation and remanded the matter for hearing on merits.
Appearances:
Mr D. V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate a/b Mr A. B. Moon & Mr. Parth C. Malviya, Adv. for Appellants.
Mr K. B. Ambilwade, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate a/b Mr G. S. Singh, Advocate for Respondent no.2(iii).
