Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The Kerala High Court (HC), while dismissing a rent control revision petition, affirmed that seeking legal advice after the expiry of limitation period cannot be considered a valid reason for extending the deadline to file an appeal in the matter of Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust, Nedumangad.

What is the Background of the Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust, Nedumangad Case?

• The petitioner (Mallika) in the first rent control petition was a tenant and challenged the title of the landlord in an eviction petition.
  • The petition was disposed of by the court owing to lack of bonafide intention.
  • The petitioner failed to prefer an appeal on time and filed the appeal only after receiving subsequent legal advice.
• Thereafter, the landlord instituted another proceeding in the Rent Control Court for eviction of petitioner in which the petitioner again challenged the title of the landlord.
  • The same was dismissed as barred by res judicata.
  • The petitioner challenged the said order to the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed.
  • The petitioner further preferred an appeal to the above-mentioned order.
    • There was a delay of 1160 days in filing the said appeal and the petitioner has therefore preferred an application to condone the said delay.
    • The only reason stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay was that the counsel who appeared on her behalf advised her to prefer an appeal against the order at such time.
    • Appellate Authority refused to condone the delay.
• The petitioner thus preferred this petition before the HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that if delay was condoned based on subsequent legal advice received by a party, then that would defeat the purpose of Limitation Act.
• The court further stated “Subsequent legal advice cannot be accepted as a cause, much less any sufficient cause, to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for if the subsequent legal advice is accepted as the cause to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings, the same would defeat the very object of the Limitation Act, viz, that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature which is a principle founded on public policy.”

What is the Legal Provision of Limitation Act, 1963 Involved?

• The Act is based upon following principles:
  • Interest republicae ut sit finis litium - In the interest of public, litigation must come to an end.
  • Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subveninet - The court protects those who are vigilant about their rights.
• The concept of condonation of delay is mentioned under Section 5 of the Act.
  • Section 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
    • Explanation - The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
• The Court can condone the delay if it is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause.
  • Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) in Sabarmati Gas Limited v. Shah Alloys Limited (2023) defined sufficient cause as cause for which a party could not be blamed.
• Sufficient Cause may include:
  • Illness: It can only be a sufficient cause where the person becomes completely incapacitated to attend any duty.
    • For Example - An accident in which a person is severely injured will be considered a sufficient cause whereas illness owing to normal flu cannot be considered as a sufficient cause.
  • Natural Calamities: If a flood, earthquake, or other natural disaster prevented someone from filing their case within the statutory limitation period, this could be considered sufficient cause.
  • Mistake of Counsel: The advice per se is not under the ambit of sufficient but in Mohanlal v. Tejsingh Thakur (1958) Madhya Pradesh HC held that where advice is given on account of good faith and there is no negligence or lack of reasonable skill on part of the counsel, it can be considered a sufficient cause.
  • Mistake of Fact: In Birbal v. Hiralal (1953), Punjab and Haryana HC held that bonafide mistake of fact on part of the party or his agent will be considered as sufficient cause.
  • Mistake of Law: It is generally not considered as a sufficient cause but the existence of conflicting decisions that have led to confusion for the party filing the appeal can be considered a valid reason for seeking an extension to condone the delay.
  • Non-Receipt of Legal Notices: If the person did not receive legal notices or important documents related to the case until after the limitation period had expired, this might be considered sufficient cause.