Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (d) by Lrs.
.
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.
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