The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that appellate authorities cannot reject appeals solely on grounds of delay without first considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This judgment underscores the principle that procedural defects should not automatically defeat substantive rights, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajveer Singh, challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, which rejected his second appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 45 days. The appeal was delayed by approximately 35 days, and no application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed alongside the memorandum of appeal.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior.
- 8 February 2024: The Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the possibility of condonation.
- The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the quashing of the Additional Commissioner's order and the restoration of his second appeal, with an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an appellate authority can reject an appeal filed beyond the limitation period without first considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar to argue that the rejection of an appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering an application for condonation, is procedurally flawed. The counsel contended that the Additional Commissioner should have returned the appeal to the petitioner for rectification of the defect, rather than outright rejection.
For the Respondent/State
The State's counsel and the counsel for respondent No. 5 supported the Additional Commissioner's order, arguing that the appeal was rightfully rejected as it was filed beyond the limitation period without the requisite application for condonation of delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the impugned order and noted that the Additional Commissioner had rejected the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. The Court observed that this approach was contrary to the principles laid down in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar, where the Supreme Court held that the absence of an application for condonation of delay at the time of filing the appeal is not fatal. Instead, the appellate authority should return the appeal to the appellant for rectification of the defect.
The Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires appellate authorities to consider applications for condonation of delay before rejecting appeals on technical grounds. This ensures that substantive rights are not defeated by mere procedural lapses.
"If memorandum of appeal is not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, the same cannot be fatal and the appeal is liable to be returned to be re-filed properly after removing the defect."
The Court further held that the Additional Commissioner's failure to provide such an opportunity amounted to a denial of natural justice, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in his challenge. The High Court quashed the order dated 8 February 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, and restored the petitioner's second appeal. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which the Additional Commissioner must consider in accordance with the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate authorities must adhere to procedural fairness when dealing with appeals filed beyond the limitation period. Practitioners should note the following key takeaways:
- Appellate authorities cannot reject appeals solely on the ground of delay without first considering an application for condonation of delay.
- Defective appeals must be returned for rectification rather than being dismissed outright. This aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar.
The Burden of Procedural Diligence
- For Appellants: Ensure that appeals are filed within the limitation period. If delayed, file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 alongside the appeal. If the application is not filed initially, be prepared to argue for an opportunity to rectify the defect.
- For Appellate Authorities: Provide appellants with an opportunity to file applications for condonation of delay before rejecting appeals on technical grounds. This ensures compliance with principles of natural justice and avoids judicial interference.
Judicial Intervention Under Article 226
- This judgment serves as a reminder that Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to correct procedural irregularities that result in the denial of substantive rights. Practitioners should consider this remedy when appellate authorities fail to adhere to procedural fairness.
