EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYATversusG. ARUMUGAM (D) BY LRS.

                       [2015] 1 S.C.R. 152

A     EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT
                                 v.
                   G. ARUMUGAM (D) BY LRS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 8577 of 2014)

                       JANUARY 19, 2015.
B
           [M. Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

       Appeal: Delay in filing - Condonation of - Delay of 1373
  days in filing appeal - Suit for declaration and possession of
C the suit land filed by first respondent - Trial court dismissed
  the suit - First respondent filed appeal which was allowed -
  No steps taken by appellant thereafter - After 4 years,
  appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and
  decree - Thereafter, second appeal filed alongwith the
o application for condonation of delay - High Court declined
  to condone the delay - On appeal, held: Delay, howsoever
  huge may be condoned if there is an attempt on part of
  government officials or public servants to defeat justice by
  causing delay.
E
        Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the
    High Court, the Court

       HELD: 1. The delay occasioned only on account of
  the deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive Officer
F of the Panchayat at the relevant time. If the court is
  convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of
  the government officials or public servants to defeat
  justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger
  public interest, should take a lenient view in such
G situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be·
  the delay, and have the matter decided on merits. The
  delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal is
  condoned. [Paras 3, 4 and 5] (154-E-F, G-H; 155-A]

H                               152
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT 153
                                          ;

         v. G. ARUMUGAM (0) BY LRS.
    State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC           -A
752: 2005 (3) SCR 108 - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:
    2005 (3) SCR 108          relied on             Para 5
                                                                  B
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8577 of 2014.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 17.04.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.P. No. 4874 of 2006 in
S.A. SR No. 876 of 2006.                                          c
                            WITH

I.A. No. 2 of 2014

    R. Nedumaran for the Appellant.                               D

    V.N. Subramaniam, Revathy Raghavan for the
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    .                                                             E
      KURIAN, J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay
of 1373 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated
14.11.2000 in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The       F
first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 267of1992 on the file of
the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Tamil Nadu for
declaration and possession of the suit land. The Gram
Panchayat, defendant in the suit, contended that the suit land
is Natham Poramboke and the possession and records of title       G
are in the name of the Panchayat. The trial court dismissed the
suit by judgment dated 11.07.1997. The complainant-first
respondent herein filed first appeal as A.S. No. 108 of 1999.
The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed by judgment
dated 14.11.2000.                                                 H
    154       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A      2. It appears, no steps were taken by the Executive Officer
  of the Panchayat at the relevant time. When the Executive
  Officer, at the time of filing the second appeal, came to know
  of the proceedings when steps for eviction were taken in
  execution, he immediately took steps and filed an application
B on 26.10.2004 for certified copy of the judgment and decree.
  The same were issued on 15.12.2004, and after obtaining the
  necessary sanction and on completing the other procedural
  formalities, the ~econd appeal was filed on 05.01.2005 along
  with application for condonation of delay. By the impugned
c order, the High Court declined to condone the delay. According
  to the High Court, the delay is not properly explained. It is also
  observed in the impugned order that though the certified copies
  were issued on 15.12.2004, the second appeal is filed only on
  05.01.2005 and that there is no explanation even for that delay.
D      3. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant
  on 12.12.2006, it is broughtto the notice of this Court that Shri
  K. G. Ramasamy, who was working as Executive Officer of the
  Panchayat at the relevant time was suspended from service
  w.e.f. 12.07.2002 on allegations of corruption. Be that as it may,
E after going through the records and after hearing the counsel
  on both sides, we are satisfied that the delay occasioned only
  on account of the deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive
  Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. Who else are
  involved in the process, is not quite clear.
F
       4. A.s held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao
  and others 1, the court must always take a justice-oriented
  approach while considering an application for condonation of
  delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt
G on the part of the government officials or public servants to
  defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger
  public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations,
  condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have
  the matter decided on merits.
H 1. c2005) 3 sec 752.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANTIYUR TOWN PANCHAYAT 155
v. G. ARUMUGAM (0) BY LRS. [KURIAN JOSEPH, J.]
      5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and              A
condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal.
The case is remitted to the High court for further consideration
in .accordance with law. The Interlocutory Application No. 2 of
2014 is accordingly disposed of.
     6. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as           B
to costs.

Devika Gujral                Appeal allowed & remitted to High Court