IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.14065 of 2008)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
NRIPEN SARMA ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General and
learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) in Misc.
Case No.1569 of 2007 in W.A.No.72020 of 2006. The appeal filed by
the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court because of
inordinate delay of 239 days. The Division Bench of the High Court,
while dismissing the appeal, has observed as under :
““We have gone through the contents of the petition.
The delay occurred because of the respondents took
their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether
the judgment should be appealed or not. It is not
that they were prevented by any reason which is
beyond their control to take such a decision in time.
Even otherwise, on merits of the case also it does
not appear to have any tenable ground of appeal. In
the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this
We have also gone through the condonation of delay
application which was filed in the High Court. In our considered
view, the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal
on the ground of delay because no sufficient cause was shown for
condoning the delay.
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the final
judgment dated 10.09.2007 before this Court. This appeal is also
barred by limitation of 114 days. There is no satisfactory
explanation for condonation of delay before this Court also.
The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly
in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the
impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of
delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of
the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by
limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning
inordinate delay in filing those cases.
On consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal on the
ground of delay. However, in the larger interest, we are keeping
the question of law open.
17TH FEBRUARY, 2011