The State Of Manipur vs Koting Lamkang

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8298 OF 2019 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22541 OF 2018)

THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KOTING LAMKANG ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

HRISHIKESH ROY,J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated

27.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in M.C.

(RFA)No. 19 of 2017 in reference to RFA No. 5/2017 whereby and

where under, the learned Judge after considering the application

filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 312 days in

preferring the Regular First Appeal, has declined to condone the

delay and the application was consequently dismissed. The

condonation was sought by the appellants with the projection that

they made a bonafide mistake in preferring the appeal against the

impugned order and decree dated 18.07.2016 before the wrong forum Signature Not Verified

i.e. learned District Judge, Imphal West. The Court however did Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2019.10.26 12:35:47 IST Reason:

not entertain the appeal on the ground that the Court has no

pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, 2

Judl.Misc. Case No. 32 of 2017 was disposed of by the learned

District Judge on 28.07.2017 permitting the appellant to file

appeal before the High Court of Manipur.

3. From the application for condonation of delay in RFA No.

19/2017, it can be seen that the time spent by the appellant in

the wrong forum was 44 days (15.06.2017 to 28.07.2017). The

learned Judge of the High Court found that the delay was not

explained for the other days. The condonation application was

accordingly rejected with the observation that there is no

explanation for the time taken by the appellants between

18.07.2016 and 15.06.2017. On that basis, the Regular First Appeal

was not entertained on merits.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State of Manipur as well as the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

would point out that after the decree, the execution proceedings

commenced and was finally concluded on 11.07.2018 and, therefore,

nothing survives in the RFA to be considered on merits inasmuch

as, possession of the concerned land was handed over to the

respondent-plaintiff.

6. The above contention of the respondent is strongly

refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants. He submits that the State of Manipur and other

defendants continue to be in possession of the disputed land,

notwithstanding the decree and the execution proceedings.

7. In so far as the refusal by the High Court to condone the 3

delay of 312 days in the RFA preferred by the State of Manipur and

others, it is apparent that the appellants did prefer the appeal

at first instance on 15.06.2017 before the District Judge. But

since this was before the wrong forum and it was filed after a

delay of about eleven months and there is no explanation for the

time taken by the State between 18.07.2016 and 15.06.2017, the

delay in the RFA before the High Court was not condoned. In fact

the Court found that the State has not shown as to what prevented

them from preferring the appeal before the District Judge (wrong

forum), until 15.06.2017. The Court also said that the latitude in

applying the standards of “sufficient cause” test is not

attracted, in the instant case.

8. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the

court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the

slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way

of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a

judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of

limitation would harshly affect the party, the court felt that

the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be

condoned.

9. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to

the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where

individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in

turn, would result in injustice to the institutional

interest of the State. If the appeal filed by State are

lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will 4

not usually be individually affected.

10. In the the instant case under the decree passed

against the defendants i.e. the State of Manipur, the

Director General of Police and the Commandant of 8 th

battalion of the Manipur rifles, the appellants are to

vacate and handover the Schedule “C” and “D” land, which is

projected to be an area of strategic importance by the

appellants. Therefore we feel that it is necessary for

making available to the appellants a legal forum, which

could consider their challenge to the decree obtained by

the plaintiff from the Civil Judge (senior division)

Chandel, in the O.S. no. 4 of 2015.

11. In the present matter, the delay to the extent of 44

days, in moving before the wrong court was found to be

satisfactorily explained in the impugned judgment. As

regards the failure of the State to adequately explain the

remaining period of delay, our opinion is that the interest

of justice would be better served, if the appellants’

challenge to the decree of the Trial Court is allowed to be

examined on merit, by the first Appellate Court. If the

merit of the Defendant’s RFA is not permitted to be examined

by the Appellate Court, the State will have no opportunity

to address their grievances before a higher Court. We may

also observe that if consideration of the RFA is not 5

permitted on strategically sensitive case involving

security, in the ultimate analysis, the public interest is

likely to suffer. The First Appeal should therefore be

considered on merit instead of the State being non-suited,

on the ground of delay.

12. Therefore to avoid injustice to the State’s interest

and considering the special circumstances in the matter at

issue, we deem it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and interfere

with the impugned order of the High Court of Manipur. The

delay in filing the first appeal is condoned. This shall

however be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand) by the appellants in the High Court.

In the result, the Regular First Appeal preferred by the

appellants is directed to be restored and considered on its

own merits. Considering the rival contentions on possession

being taken over/not taken over and the execution

proceedings stated to have concluded on 11.07.2018, the

issue of possession and finalisation of the execution is

made subject to the final decision of the High Court, in

the RFA No. 5 of 2017.

13. In view of the above decision, the Executing Court is

directed to refund the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen

lakhs) to the appellant-State of Manipur along with accrued

interest deposited in the Executing Court, in pursuant to the 6

order dated 29.01.2018 passed by this Court.

14. With the above order, the appeal is allowed.

.....................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

.....................J. [A.S. BOPANNA]

NEW DELHI .....................J. 22nd OCTOBER, 2019 [HRISHIKESH ROY]