Mahant Bikram Dass Chela Vs. Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors [1977] INSC 159 (3 August
1977)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION: 1977 AIR 2221 1978 SCR (1) 262 1977
SCC (4) 69
CITATOR INFO :
R 1978 SC 335 (11)
ACT:
Limitation Act 1963, Sections 5, 117-Whether
requirement of filing sufficient copies of memorandum of appeal mandatoryWhether
not filing of file copies renders appeal time-barred-Civil Procedure Code, O.41
r. 1-Rules and orders of Punjab High Court-Chapter I Volume V. HEADNOTE:
The appellants filed two applications for the
ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they failed to pay rent without
sufficient cause. These applications were dismissed first by the Assistant
Collector and then by the Collector.
The appellant then filed two revision
applications to the Commissioner who made a recommendation to the Financial
Commissioner to the effect that the orders of the Collector and the Assistant
Collector be set aside and a decree for ejectment be passed against the
respondents. Financial Commissioner passed a decree evicting the respondents
from the land in one revision application. The other Revision Application the
Financial Commissioner held that the ejectment petition filed by the appellant
had become infructuous in view of the fact that the land was required by the
Amritsar Improvement Trust which had already taken possession thereof. The
question of their ejectment did not arise for consideration.
The appellant challenged the decision of the
Financial Commissioner by filing a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana
High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by a single Judge on 10th November
1970. The appellant filed an appeal against that judgment under clause 10 of
Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal
against that judgment was lodged by the appellant on December 23, 1970, which
was within 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from. The Letter
Patent Appeal came up for admission on February 24, 1971 when Division Bench
issued notice to the respondent. Respondents raised an objection that the
appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that though the memorandum of
appeal was filed within 30 days of the date of the judgment of single Judge, it
was not accompanied by 3 sets of documents which are required to be filed under
the rules of the High Court. Counsel for appellant then asked for an adjournment
for filing an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act 1063 for condonation
of delay.
The matter was referred for opinion of a full
Bench. The question which the Division Bench, inter alia, referred to the Full
Bench was as under :
"Can an appeal under clause 10 of the
Letters Patent be held to be incomplete or 'no appeal in the eye of law' merely
because it is not accompanied by the requisite three spare copies of the paper
book This question was answered by the full Bench thus :
"the above discussion leads to the
conclusion that if an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent does not
comply with the mandatory provision of Rule 3 of Chapter 2-e of the High Court
Rules by not filing 3 sets of typed copies of the documents, it has to be
regarded as no appeal in the eyes of the law and shall not be deemed to be
filed on that day. it shall be deemed to have been filed only on the day, when
it is complete in all respects as 'required by the Rules and is accepted to
registration by the Registry." After deciding the question the Full Bench
remitted the appeal to Division 2 6 3 Bench and directed the Division Bench to
deal with the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay
caused in filing the appeal.
The Division Bench then took up the appeal
for consideration of the question whether the delay caused in filing the appeal
should be condoned under s. 5 of Limitation Act. It held that the appellant had
failed to make out a case for condonation of delay and, therefore, dismissed it
on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
Allowing an appeal by certificate,
HELD : For deciding the question whether the
appeal is preferred in time, the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, the
Civil Procedure Code and the Rules and Orders of the High Court must be
noticed. [266C] Article 117 of Limitation Act 1963 prescribes a period of 30
days limitation for filing an appeal from a decree or order of any High Court
to Supreme Court. The time for filing such an appeal runs from the date of the
decree or order appealed from. Section 5 of Limitation Act provides for
extension of the prescribed period of limitation if the appellant satisfies the
Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that
perod. [266C-D] Order 41, Rule 1(1) of Civil Procedure Code requires that every
appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant
or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in
that behalf. The memorandum has to be accompanied by a copy of the decree
appealed from and of the judgment on which it is founded, unless the appellate
court dispenses with the production of the judgment. If these conditions are
fulfilled, the appeal is preferred validly so far as the requirements of Civil
Procedure Code are concerned on the date on which it is presented. A memorandum
which does not satisfy these requirements may, under Rule 3(1) be rejected or
returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be
fixed by the Court or be amended then and there.
[266D-F] Chapter I of Volume V of Rules and
Orders of Punjab High Court, which is entitled "Judicial Business"
deals under Part A with the presentation and reception of appeals, petitions
and applications for review and revision. Pule 4 provides :
"No memorandum of appeal preferred under
clause 10 of Letters Patent shall be entertained if presented after the
expiration of 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from unless the
admitting Bench in its discretion, for good cause shown, grants further time
for presentation." [266G-H] By Rule 5(1) the Deputy Registrar may return
for amendment and refiling within a time not exceeding 10 days at a time, and
40 days in the aggregate, to be filed by him any memorandum of appeal for the
reason specified in Order XLI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, if the memo of
appeal is not amended within the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar under
sub-rule (1) it has to be listed for orders before the Court under sub-rule
(2). [267AB] Chapter 2-e, Part which deals with "Preparation of Paper
Books in L.P. Appeals" provides by rule 3 that no appeal under clause 10
of the Letters Patent be received by-the Deputy Registrar unless it is
accompanied by three typed copies of (a) the memorandum of appeal; (b) the
judgment appealed from and (c) the paper book which was before the judge from
whose judgment the appeal is preferred. [267B-C] In the instant case, only one
set of documents was filed along with the memorandum of the Letters Parent
Appeal.
Nevertheless, the Deputy Registrar did
receive the appeal on December 23, 1970. He accepted the remaining two sets of
the documents required to be filed under Rule 3 on January 30, 1971. [267C]
HELD FURTHER : Rule 3 is directory and not
mandatory. Rule 3 being directory in nature, substantial compliance therewith
is enough to meet its requirements. There was in this case substantial
compliance with the rule and it was erroneous to treat the appeal as being time
barred by limitation 264 Since one complete set of three documents specified in
Rule 3 was filed alongwith the memorandum, the failure to., file two additional
set of document is a mere irregularity which it was within the discretion of
the High Court to condone.
[267D, 268C] State of Punjab v. Shamlal
Murari [1976] 2 SCR 82 followed.
The submission of the respondent that this
court should not interfere with the order of High Court passed in its
discretionary powers negatived; since the High Court exercised its discretion
on a fallacious supposition that the appeal was time-barred. [267H, 268A]
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard-task master and judicial
interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of
case-law has grown around s. 5, its high lights being that one ought not easily
take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that,
therefore, a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every
day's delay. These and similar considerations which influence the decision of
s. 5 application are out of place in cases where the appeal itself is preferred
within the period of limitation but there is an irregularity in presenting it.
[268G-H. 269A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1822 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26-9-1974
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 1971.
H. L. Sibbal, S. K. Jain and S. M. Jain for
the Appellant.
N. C. Sikri, A. K. Sikri and A. D. Sikri for
Respondents 4-6 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The
appellant, Mahant Bikram Dass Chela, filed two applications for eviction of
respondents 4 to 6 (hereinafter called 'the respondents'), on the ground that
they had committed default in the payment of rent. A compromise was arrived at
between the parties on March 31, 1969, under which it was agreed that the
respondents should pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 11,872 by March 31, 1959
and the balance in six-monthly installments of Rs. 1,000/each. Respondents
committed default in the payment of future instalments, upon which the
appellant filed two applications on April 2, 1962 for their ejectment on the
ground that they had failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. One of these
applications covered an area of 117 Kanals and the other of 76 kanals odd. . .
. . These applications were dismissed first by the Assistant Collector and in
appeal by the Collector. The appellant then filed revision applications to the
Commissioner, who, on March 1, 1965 made a recommendation to the, Financial
Commissioner to the effect that the orders of the Collector and the Assistant
Collector be set aside and a decree for ejectment be passed against the
respondents. By his order dated November 26, 1965 the Financial Commissioner
accepted the recommendation with regard to the area of 76 Kanals and passed a
decree evicting the respondents from that land.
That order his become final.
In the other Revision pertaining to 117
Kanals, the Financial 'Commissioner by an order dated November 4, 1965 held
that the ejectment-petition filed by the appellant had become infructuous in
view of the fact that the land was acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust,
which had already taken possession thereof. According 265 to the Financial
Commissioner, since the Improvement Trust had taken possession of the land, respondents
ceased to be tenants and the "question of their ejectment did not arise
for consideration.
The appellant then filed a Civil Writ, No.
1146 of 1966, in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, challenging the decision
of the Financial Commissioner. The, Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned
Single Judge against which the appellant filed an appeal under clause 10 of the
Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Single Judge had dismissed the Writ
Petition on November
27. 1970. The Memorandum of the Letters
Patent Appeal against that judgment was lodged by the appellant on December 23,
1970, which was within 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from. The
Letters Patent appeal came up for admission on February 24, 1971 when the
Division Bench directed that a notice be issued to the respondents in regard to
the admission of, the appeal. After completion of the record of the appeal, the
matter was placed for hearing before a Division Bench. when the respondents
raised an objection that the appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that
though the memorandum of appeal was filed within 30 days of the date of the
judgment of the Single Judge, it was not accompanied by three sets of documents
which are required to be filed under the rules of the High Court.
Counsel for the appellant then asked for an
adjournment for filing an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of die delay. Notice of the condonation application was given to
the respondents and on hearing them, the Court framed seven questions and
referred them for the opinion of a Full Beach. The questions, as they read, do
not seem to call for such special treatment but it appears that though the
matters in dispute relate to procedural regulations, learned Judges of the High
Court had taken differing views which necessitated the reference to a Full
Bench.
The Full Bench answered those questions by a
judgment dated March 19, 1974 and remitted the appeal to the Division Bench for
final disposal in the light of the answers given by it.
It also directed the Division Bench to deal
with the application filed by the appellant for condonation of the delay caused
in filing the appeal.
Out of the seven questions referred to the
Full Bench, we are concerned, principally, with question No. 7 only, which is
as follows "Can an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent be held to
be incomplete or "no appeal in the eye of law" merely because it is not
accompanied by the requisite three spare copies of the paper-book ?" This
question was answered by the Full Bench thus "The above discussion leads
to the conclusion that if an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent does
not corn ply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C of the
Rules by not filing three sets of typed copies of the documents, it has to be
regarded as no appeal in the eve of law and shall not be deemed to have been
filed on 6--768SCI/77 266 that day. It shall be deemed to have been filed only
on the day when it is complete in an respects, as required by the Rules, and is
accepted for registration by the Registry." The Division Bench then took
up the appeal for consideration of the question whether the delay caused in filing
the appeal should be condoned under S. 5 of the Limitation Act.
By a judgment dated September 26, 1964 it
held that the appellant had failed to make out a case for condonation of the
delay and, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground that
it was barred by limitation.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, against
which the appellant has filed this appeal by certificate granted by the High
Court.
For deciding the question whether the appeal
was preferred in time, the relevant provisions of the, Limitation Act, the
Civil Procedure Code and the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court must be noticed.
Article 117 of the Limitation Act, 36 of
1963, prescribes a period of. 30 days' limitation for filing an appeal from a
decree or order of any High Court to the same Court. The time for filing such
an appeal runs from the date of the decree or order appealed from. Section 5 of
the Limitation Act provides for extension of the prescribed period of
limitation if the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal within that period.
Order 41, Rule 1(1) of the, Code of Civil
Procedure requires that every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a
memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or
to such officer as it appoints in that behalf. The memorandum has to be
accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and of the judgment on which
it is founded, unless the appellate court dispensers with the production of the
judgment. If these conditions are fulfilled the appeal is preferred validly, so
far as the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code are concerned, on the date
on which it is presented. A memorandum which does not satisfy these
requirements may, under Rule 3(1), be rejected, or returned to the appellant,
for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be
amended then and there.
The Rules and Orders of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, which are contained in Volume V of the High Court
publication, relate to "Proceedings in the High Court" and are made
under the authority, inter alia, of the Letters Patent of the High Court. Chapter
of the aforesaid volume, which is entitled "Judicial Business", deals
by Part A with the presentation and reception of appeals, petitions and
applications for Review and Revision. Rule 4 provides :
"No memorandum of appeal preferred under
clause 10 of the Letters Patent shall be entertained if presented after the
expiration of 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from, unless the
admitting Bench in its discretion, for good cause shown, grants further time
for the presentation".
267 By rule 5(1), the Deputy Registrar may
return for amendment and refiling within a time not exceeding 10 days at a
time, and 40 days in the aggregate, to be fixed by him, any memorandum of
appeal for the reason specified in Order XII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. If
the memorandum of appeal is not amended within the time allowed by the Deputy
Registrar under sub-rule (1), it has to be listed for orders before the Court
under sub-r. (2).
Chapter 2-C, Part C, which deals with
"Preparation of paper books in Letters Patent Appeals", provided by
rule 3 that no appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be received by
the Deputy Registrar unless it is accompanied by three typed copies of (a) the
memorandum of appeal; (b) the judgment appealed from; and (c) the paper-book
which was before the Judge from whose judgment the appeal is preferred.
In the instant case, only one set of
documents was filed along with the Memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal.
Nevertheless, the Deputy Registrar did
receive the appeal on Dec. 23, 1970. He accepted the remaining two sets of the
documents required to be filed under rule,3 on January 30, 1971.
The judgment of the Full Bench, Bikram Dass
Dass v. Financial Commissioner,(1) in pursuance of which the Division Bench
considered the question of condonation of delay and passed the impugned order
came for consideration before this Court in State of Punjab v. Shamlal
Murari.(2) It was held in that case that every minor detail specified in rule 3
does not carry a compulsory import, that the core of the matter is not that
three copies of documents mentioned in the rule must be filed but that copies
of all the documents mentioned in the rule should be before the Court and that
there should be no overemphasis on the filing of three copies of the documents
at the time when the appeal is filed. The Court further observed that if no
copy at all of any of the three items is furnished the result might be
different but the failure to comply with the rule strictly is a mere
irregularity which the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, can condone by
granting further time for formal compliance with the rule. After thus holding
that rule 3, though expressed in mandatory language, is directory in nature,
the Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to extend
the time and condone the delay, since that was a discretionary exercise of
power by the High Court.
Following this decision, and in respectful
agreement with the view that rule 3 is directory and not mandatory, we must
hold that since one complete set of the three documents specified in rule 3 was
filed along with the memorandum, the failure to file two additional sets of
documents is a mere irregularity which it was within the discretion of the High
Court to condone.
Counsel for the respondents contends that
since the High Court has exercised its discretion in the matter by refusing to
condone the delay, we should not interfere with the High Court's order for the
(1) A.I.R. [1975] Punjab. 1.
(2) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 82.
268 same reasons for which this Court in
Shamlals (supra) case refused to interfere with discretionary order. We are
unable to accept that the decision in Shamlal's case can be a precedent on the
question as to the limits of the power of this Court to interfere with a discretionary
order. But quite apart from that consideration, there are valid reasons why we
cannot sustain the order of the High Court refusing to condone, what is
described as 'the delay caused in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
The argument proceeds on the assumption that
the appeal was presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing
Letters Patent Appeals. That is a fallacious assumption. The appeal was
presented within 10 days, which is the period of limitation for filing Letters
Patent Appeals. There was, however, an irregularity in presenting the appeal,
namely, that the appeal was accompanied by only one set of the three items
mentioned in rule 3 of Chapter 2C which requires that three sets should be
filed. Ride 3, being directory in nature, substantial compliance therewith is
enough to meet its requirements. There was, in the instant case, substantial
compliance with the rule and therefore, it was erroneous to treat the appeal as
being barred by limitation.
The irregularity committed in filing only one
set of the three documents mentioned in rule, 3 of Chapter 2-C was cured within
a reasonable time by filing the remaining two sets on January 30, 1971. That
was within 40 days of the date on which the appeal was preferred, which is the
time which the Deputy Registrar can grant in the aggregate, under rule 5(1) of
Chapter 1, for amendment of a memorandum of appeal which does not comply with
Order 41, rule, 3, C.P.C.
The Letters Patent Appeal was taken up by the
Admitting Bench for admission on February 24, 1971 when the appeal was complete
in all respects. There was then no question of granting further time for
"presentation" of the appeal or for removing the irregularity from
which the presentation of the appeal suffered.
The objection raised by the respondents on
the score of limitation, the adjournment sought by the appellant to file an
application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the
refusal of the Division Bench to condone the delay are all misplaced,
proceeding as they did on an erroneous assumption that the appeal was barred by
time on the date on which it was filed and that the requirement of rule 3 of
Chapter 2-C is mandatory in character. We cannot stay our hands on the ground
that this Court does not normally interfere with discretionary orders, when the
High Court used its discretion on an altogether fallacious supposition that it
had to consider the question of condonation of delay in the context of an
application filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard
task-matter and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass.
A large measure of case-law has grown around s. 5, its highlights being that
one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse
of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must
explain every day's delay. These and similar 269 considerations which influence
the decision of S. 5 applications are out of place in cases where the appeal
itself is preferred within the period of limitation but there is an
irregularity in presenting it. Thus, in the instant case, there was no occasion
to invoke the provisions of s. 5, Limitation Act, or of rule 4, Chapter 1, of
the High Court Rules. If the Division Bench were, aware that rifle, 3 of
Chapter 2-C is directory, it would have treated the appeal as having been filed
within the period of limitation, rendering it inapposite to consider whether
the delay caused in filing the appeal could be condoned.
We hold accordingly that the High Court is
wrong in its view that the appeal was barred by time. The, memorandum was
presented within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days and there is no
reason why, the irregularity committed in not filing three sets of documents
along with the memorandum should not be excused when one complete set was
filled with the memorandum and the remaining two sets were filed within a
reasonable, time thereafter.
It is not necessary to send back this matter
to the High Court, since the parties have arrived at a settlement. The
appellant. agrees that the sum of Rs. 25,734/which is kept in a fixed deposit
account in the names of respondent 4 (Dayal Singh), respondent 5 (Harbhajan
Singh) and respondent 6 (Harbans Singh) in the Punjab National Bank, Amritsar,
may be, withdrawn unconditionally by these respondents, together with the
interest which may have accrued on the aforesaid amount. Mr. Sikri, on behalf
of the three respondents, gives up all the rights and contentions in the matter
and agrees that his clients shall have no right to participate or share in any
further or higher amount which may be granted by way of compensation for the
acquired land. The appellant, on his part, agrees that be will not be entitled
to recover from respondents 4, 5 and 6 any amount by way of arrears of rent.
Since respondents 4, 5, and 6 have given up their contentions in the suit,
their rights shall stand transferred to the appellant.
The appeal shall stand disposed of
accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
F.H.P.
Appeal allowed.
Back
