http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: P.K. RAMACHANDRAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The  respondent  -  state  of  Kerala  and  Anr.  filed Miscellaneous First  Appeal No.316/96  against the  judgment and decree of the learned Sub Court at Kollam in Arbitration Application No.  108/92.  The appeal was barred by 565 days. The respondents  filed an application seeking condonation of delay and  by the  order impugned  herein,  that  delay  was condoned.  The impugned order reads thus  :      "This is  an application to condone      the delay  of 565 days in filing an      appeal.   The petition is seriously      opposed by  the  respondent.    But      taking   into   consideration   the      averments    contained    in    the      affidavit filed  in support  of the      petition to  condone the  delay, we      are inclined to allow the petition.      The petition stands allowed."      It would  be noticed  from a  perusal of  the  impugned order  (supra)   that  the   court  has   not  recorded  any satisfaction that  the explanation  for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is essential pre-requisite to condonation of delay.      That apart,  we find  that in  the application filed by the respondent  seeking condonation  of delay, the thrust in explaining the delay after 12.5.1995, si:      "at   that    time   the   Advocate      General’s office was fed up with so      many  arbitration  matters  equally      important to this case were pending      for  consideration   as   per   the      directions of  the Advocate General      on 2.9.1995."      This  can   hardly  be   said  to   be  a   reasonable, satisfactory  or  even  a  proper  explanation  for  seeking condonation of delay.  In the reply filed to the application seeking condonation  of delay  by the  appellant in the High Court, it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by  the learned  Sub Judge, Kollam on 30.10.1993,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the scope  for filing  of the  appeal was  examined  by  the District  Government   Pleader,  Special  Law  Officer,  Law Secretary and  the Advocate  General and  in accordance with their opinion,  it was  decided that  there was no scope for filing the  appeal but lateron, despite the opinion referred to above,  the appeal  was filed  as  late  as  on  8.1.1996 without disclosing  why it  was being filed.  The High Court does not  appear to  have examined  the reply  filed by  the appellant as  reference to  the same  is conspicuous  by its absence from  the order.   We  are not satisfied that in the facts and  circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a  reasonable or  satisfactory one  had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days.      Law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it  has to  be applied  with all  its  rigour  when  the statute so  prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the  period   of  limitation  on  equitable  grounds.    The discretion exercised  by the  High Court  was, thus, neither proper nor  judicious.  The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained.   This  appeal, therefore,  succeeds  and  the impugned order  is set aside.  Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and  the Miscellaneous  First  Appeal  shall  stand dismissed as barred by time.  No costs.