A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti while taking Judicial note of fact that there is a lack of clarity at the end of quasi judicial/statutory authorities exercising appellate jurisdiction when it comes to matter of handling and dealing with at the very first stage of coming of time barred appeals accompanied with the applications for condonation of delay and also for interim directions, held that Before An Appellate Forum/Authority Comes To Deal With Any Time Barred Appeal, Nothing is Meant to be Done With Respect to Operation of Impugned Order in Such an Appeal Without First Adjudicating the Condonation of Delay If Sought by The Appellant
The court was dealing with an order passed by the quasi judicial authority exercising Appellate jurisdiction which had stayed the operation of impugned order in a time barred Appeal without first dealing/adjudicating with the Condonation of delay Application filed with the Time Barred Appeal.
The court while taking judicial notice of the lack of clarity on the legal position while dealing with such time Barred appeals at the end of both quasi judicial & statutory authorities explained the position of law for guidance of quasi judicial/statutory authorities so as to obviate the multiplicity of litigation.
The court while discussing and appreciating various provisions of Limitation Act observed that Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not leave it for a defendant/respondent to come forward and register an objection with respect to an instituted suit, appeal or an application whose maintainability is barred by time. In fact, it is always for a court, be it civil or criminal, and/or authority, be it judicial or quasi judicial, before whom a time barred action/remedy, be it original or an appellate one, is sought to be maintained that the mandate of proscription meant in section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 comes into instant play. Thus with respect to a time barred appeal/prescribed application, what section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages is its dismissal unless by resort to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 condonation of delay in attending the institution of the appeal/application is granted. However, with respect to a time barred appeal/prescribed application, what section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages is its dismissal unless by resort to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 condonation of delay in attending the institution of the appeal/application is granted.
The court held, “Entertainment of an appeal which is preferred within a period of limitation prescribed is not subject to discretion of an appellate authority and its adjudication on merits is meant to take place. However, when the appeal is time barred, then before an appellate forum/authority comes to deal with such a time barred appeal, nothing is meant to be done with respect to operation of an impugned order in appeal without first adjudicating with respect to condonation of delay if sought by the appellant. In case, operation of an impugned order under a time barred appeal is intended to be stayed or held up by an appellant, then unless and until there is an application pleading facts seeking stay of operation of the impugned order pending final disposal of the application for condonation of delay, there is no jurisdiction available with the appellate authority/forum to order stay of operation of impugned order in response to an application, if any, filed by the appellant, in reference to the time barred appeal.”
The said position of law is also supported by a five judge Bench of Privy Counsel in the case of “Krishnasami Panikondar Vs. Ramasami Chettiar and others” (1917 AIR Privy Council 179)” and also in the case decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bogidhola Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Hira Lal Somani” (2008 AIR SC 911)” holding that a court would not exercise its jurisdiction for any relief in favour of a party, if the same is filed to be barred by limitation. With reference to a time barred civil suit in which it is found that the suit is barred by limitation a court is held to have no jurisdiction to pass a decree.
The court further observed that so long as the delay attending filing of an appeal against an appealable order is not condoned, the jurisdiction of an appellate court/authority to pass any order in relation to the order and the appeal does not kick start.
