Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Amaledu Kumar Bera & ORS. Vs State of West Bengal (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/03/2013
Related Assessment Year :

Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court HELD  Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of sufficient cause’ delay shall not be condoned.

In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly earlier objection filed by the Respondent-State under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on 17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the Respondent-State after about one year filed another objection on 15.9.2011 under Section 47 of the Code which was finally rejected by the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was issued by the executing court the respondent preferred civil revision against the first order dated 17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. True it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there is serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. As noticed above, the decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-State from interfering with the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff-appellant. It is evident that when the State tried to interfere with possession the decree holder had no alternative but to levy the execution case for execution of the decree with regard to interference with possession. In our opinion their delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order refusing to entertain objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court while deciding petition for condoning the delay. Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of ‘sufficient cause’ delay shall not be condoned.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.


  1. adv. dr.g.balakrishnan says:

    Right decision,sate is an Art 12 set up and citizen is sovereign; citizen is no linger subject of the state, as citizen electors only voted a government for five or so years and the IS WELL READ WITH said government cannot over ride the citizen sovereign,when we read with Art 19(1)(a) r/w Art 21 r/w Art 38 and 39 which is also considered as a fundamental right when Art 51A legal duties and obligations of public authorities too.

    sec 47 of CPC 1908 WELL read with limitation principle of ‘sufficient cause’a main ingredient every state need to prove its sufficient cause for condonation, how a state can get a mechanical condonation in an advanced democracy which is a cocktail of the best advanced democracies in the world!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
May 2024