Supreme Court civil appeal concerning a dispute over land ownership between an individual, Inder Singh, and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The core issue revolves around the condonation of significant delays by the State in filing appeals in the lower courts, specifically a review petition and a second appeal. The appellant argues that the State did not demonstrate sufficient cause for these delays, citing legal precedents that caution against laxity, even for government entities. Conversely, the respondent-State maintains the delays were unintentional, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and stresses the importance of the case being decided on its merits given the land’s status as government property. The Supreme Court ultimately upholds the High Court’s decision to condone the delay, allowing the second appeal to proceed on its merits, but imposes costs on the State and warns against future tardiness.
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 – Civil Procedure Code, 1860, Section 100 – Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause – IA seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal, has been allowed by High Court with a direction for listing the Second Appeal to be heard on admission as well as the accompanying stay application – Held that there can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation – Filing of the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was with a delay of two years and four months and the Second Appeal before the High Court was delayed by about a year from the date of the dismissal of the Review Petition i.e., 30.09.2019 – Dispute over title of a land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State – Moreover, when the land in question was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in the possession of the State, the claim of the State that it is government land cannot be summarily discarded – The case relate to land claimed by the State as government land and in its possession, persuade us to not interfere with the Impugned Order – Relevantly, initially the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, which decision was reversed by the First Appellate Court – Held that the Second Appeal deserves to be heard, contested and decided on merits – However, a note of caution is sounded to the respondent to exhibit promptitude in like matters henceforth and in futuro, failing which the Court may not be as liberal – Appeal liable to be dismissed – Impugned Order upheld with the imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- be paid by the respondent to the appellant, subject to which the delay in filing the Second Appeal shall be treated as condoned – Let such payment be made within one month from today – Failure to do so shall entail peremptory dismissal of the Second Appeal.
(Para 14, 15, 18 to 21)
Inder Singh V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 382: (DoJ 21-03-2025)
