Citations: N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123
Date of Judgement: 03/09/1998
Case No.: Civil Appeal No’s 4575-76 of 1998
Case Type: Civil Appeal
Petitioner: N. Balakrishnan
Respondent: M. Krishnamurthy
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Sahghir Ahmad and Hon’ble K.T Thomas
Statutes Referred:
- Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5.
Cases Referred:
- Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575,
- State of West Bengal Vs the Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749.
Facts:
- In this case Suit for declaration of title and ancillary reliefs filed by the respondent was decreed ex-parte on 28.10.1991. Appellant who was defendant within suit on coming to understand of the decree moved an application to set it aside.
- But the application was dismissed for default on 17.02.1993.
- Appellant engaged an advocate for making the motion to set aside. The advocate did not tell him that the application was dismissed for default on 17.02.1993. He became suspicious of the conduct of his advocate and hence, rushed to the court.
- Appellant moved for having that order set aside on 19.8.1995 and delay of 833 days to approach in court against dismissal of his application was noted.
- It was stated that his advocate has left the profession and joined as legal assistant of MS Maxworth Orcheads India limited.
- He also moved the District Consumer Dispute Riderless Forum, Madras North for seeking compensation of Rupees One Lakh as against his erstwhile advocate.
- The said forum passed a final order directing said advocate to pay a compensation of Rupees Fifty Thousand to the appellant besides a price of Rupees Five Hundred.
Issue involved:
- Whether the delay of 833 days for a filling an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 should be condoned?
Contentions of Appellant:
The counsel for Appellant’s contended that:
- Appellant became suspicious of the conduct of his advocate and hence rushed to the court. He also moved the District Consumer Dispute Riderless Forum, Madras North for seeking compensation of Rs. 1 lakh as against erstwhile advocate.
Judgement:
The High Court of Madras has set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Court directed the claimant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent or deposit it in the court within a month from this date.
Appeals are disposed of.
Ratio Decidendi:
- Appellant’s conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. If the appellant was careful enough to verify about the stage of the proceedings at any point of time, it could have been said that due to the conduct of the counsel, the party shouldn’t be penalised.
- The Court observed that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause but if there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was caused by the party deliberately to realize time then the Court should be against the acceptance of the application.
- The law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.
- The primary function of court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice.
Conclusion:
In the light of the facts Supreme Court had directed that the Limitation Act, 1936 fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the legal injury so suffered. In this present case appellant was careful enough to verify about the stage of the proceedings at any point of time, due to the misconduct of the counsel the party shouldn’t be penalised.
Drafted By: Samanta Rao, CLS – Gitarattan International Business School
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: September 30, 2021 at 11:28 IST