Page 1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10581 OF 2013
(Arisi! "#$ "% SLP(C& NO. 23'18 OF 2012&
MANOHARAN (APPELLANT
Vs.
SIVARAJAN ) ORS. (RESPONDENTS
J U D * M E N T
V.*"+,-, *"./, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant
questioning the correctness of the judgment and
final Order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the igh
!ourt of "erala at #rna$ulam in %&' (o. )*+ of 2011
Page 2
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
urging various facts and legal contentions in
justification of his claim.
3. (ecessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to
appreciate the case of the appellant and also to
find out ,hether the appellant is entitled for the
relief as prayed in this appeal.
The appellant approached the respondent no. 1 -
a money lender. for a loan of 2.20.000/-. The
respondent no. 1 agreed to give him the loan in
return of e0ecution of a sale deed ,ith respect to 3
cents of land in re-survey (o. 111/13-1 in 1loc$ (o.
12 of 2aranalloor village by the appellant in his
favour. 3t ,as agreed upon bet,een the parties that
the respondent no. 1 ,ill reconvey the property in
favour of the appellant on repayment of the loan.
The appellant accordingly e0ecuted sale deed (o. 4*4
of 2001 at sub %egistrar5s office at Ooruttambalam
,ith respect to 3 cents of land in %e-survey
(o.111/13-1 in 1loc$ no.12 of 2aranalloor village in
- 2-
Page 3
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
favour of respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1
e0ecuted an agreement of re-conveyance deed in
favour of the appellant regarding the above
mentioned property on the same day.

6. The learned senior counsel. 2r. 1asanth %.
appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the
appellant approached the respondent no.1 several
times ,ith money for re-conveying the property in
favour of the appellant as ,as agreed upon bet,een
them but the respondent no. 1 evaded from doing so.

4. 3t is also the case of the appellant that
respondent no.1. instead of issuing a deed of re-
conveyance. sold the property to %espondent nos. 2
and 3 ,ithout the $no,ledge of the appellant. The
appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent no.1
requesting him to appear before the sub %egistrar5s
office for the e0ecution of re-conveyance deed
regarding the plaint schedule property to ,hich the
respondent no. 1 did not oblige. The appellant then
- 3-
Page 4
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
filed a suit being O7 (o. 161/200* before the !ourt
of sub 8udge. (eyyattin$ara for mandatory injunction.
for declaration of the sale deed e0ecuted by
%espondent no.1 in favour of %espondent nos. 2 and 3
as null and void. for e0ecution of re-conveyance deed
in his favour and also for consequential reliefs. The
suit ,as valued at 3.03.9)*/- and the court fee ,as
valued at 2+.*9*/-. The appellant paid 1/10
th
of the
court fee i.e.. 2++0/- at the time of filing the
suit. The !ourt of sub 8udge. (eyyattin$ara granted
injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the
respondents from carrying out ne, construction
activities including the parts of the plaint schedule
property until further orders.

). The court of sub 8udge. (eyyattin$ara heard the
application for e0tension of time sought by the
appellant for paying the balance court fee. o,ever.
the application ,as rejected and the file ,as closed
by the learned sub 8udge. The appellant then filed
%egular &irst 'ppeal (o. )*+ of 2011 along ,ith an
- 4-
Page 5
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. The igh !ourt dismissed the application for
condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in
filing the appeal ,as not e0plained by the appellant
and consequently. dismissed the %egular &irst 'ppeal
filed by the appellant. The igh !ourt5s opinion
that the appellant has not given any ground for
delay in filing the %egular &irst 'ppeal is not
sustainable since the appellant has categorically
claimed that he ,as not a,are of the rejection of
the suit of the appellant for delayed payment of
court fee by the learned sub 8udge.
*. 3n the light of the facts and circumstances of
the case. the follo,ing points ,ould arise for our
consideration:
1.;hether the learned sub 8udge ,as justified
in rejecting the suit for non- payment of
court fee<
- 5-
Page 6
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
2.;as the appellant entitled to condonation
of delay for non- payment of court fee by
the learned sub 8udge<
3.;hether the igh !ourt ,as right in
rejecting the application for condonation
of delay filed by the appellant against the
decision of the learned sub judge ,ho
rejected the suit of the appellant for non-
payment of court fee<
6.;hat Order<
'ns,er to =oint no. 1
+. 7ection 169 of the !ivil =rocedure !ode
prescribes a discretionary po,er ,hich empo,ers the
!ourt to allo, a party to ma$e up the deficiency of
court fee payable on plaint. appeals. applications.
revie, of judgment etc. This 7ection also empo,ers
the !ourt to retrospectively validate insufficiency
of stamp duties etc. 3t is also a usual practice
that the !ourt provides an opportunity to the party
- 6-
Page 7
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
to pay court fee ,ithin a stipulated time on failure
of ,hich the !ourt dismisses the appeal. 3n the
present case. the appellant filed an application for
e0tension of time for remitting the balance court
fee ,hich ,as rejected by the learned sub 8udge. 3t
is the claim of the appellant that he ,as unable to
pay the requisite amount of court fee due to
financial difficulties. 3t is the usual practice of
the court to use this discretion in favour of the
litigating parties unless there are manifest grounds
of mala fide. The !ourt. ,hile e0tending the time
for or e0empting from the payment of court fee. must
ensure bona fide of such discretionary po,er.
!oncealment of material fact ,hile filing
application for e0tension of date for payment of
court fee can be a ground for dismissal. o,ever. in
the present case. no opportunity ,as given by the
learned sub 8udge for payment of court fee by the
appellant ,hich he ,as unable to pay due to
financial constraints. ence. the decision of the
- 7-
Page 8
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
learned sub 8udge is ,rong and is liable to be set
aside and accordingly set aside.
'ns,er to =oint no.2
9. 3n the case of S$,$0 "% Bi1,r ) Ors. 2. 3,40s1.,r
Pr,s,/ Si!1 ) Ar.
1
, it ,as held that po,er to
condone the delay in approaching the !ourt has been
conferred upon the !ourts to enable them to do
substantial justice to parties by disposing the
cases on merit. The relevant paragraphs of the case
read as under:
>11. =o,er to condone the delay in
approaching the !ourt has been conferred
upon the !ourts to enable them to do
substantial justice to parties by
disposing of matters on merits. This !ourt
in !ollector. Land 'cquisition. 'nantnag
v. 2st. "atiji ?19+*@3LL8 400 7! held that
the e0pression Asufficient causeA employed
by the legislature in the Limitation 'ct
is adequately elastic to enable the !ourts
to apply the la, in a meaningful manner
,hich subserves the ends of justice-that
being the life purpose for the e0istence
of the institution of !ourts. 3t ,as
further observed that a liberal approach
1
(2000) 9 SCC 94
- 8-
Page 9
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
is adopted on principle as it is realised
that:
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand
to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. %efusing to condone delay can result
in a meritorious matter being thro,n
out at the very threshold and cause of
justice being defeated. 's against this
,hen delay is condoned the highest that
can happen is that a cause ,ould be
decided on merits after hearing the
parties.
3. A#very dayAs delay must be
e0plainedA does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. ;hy
not every hourAs delay. every secondAs
delay< The doctrine must be applied in
a rational common sense pragmatic
manner.
6. ;hen substantial justice and
technical considerations are pitted
against each other. cause of
substantial justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot
claim to have vested right in injustice
being done because of a non-deliberate
delay.
4. There is no presumption that delay
is occasioned deliberately. or on
account of culpable negligence. or on
account of mala fides. ' litigant does
not stand to benefit by resorting to
delay. 3n fact he runs a serious ris$.
). 3t must be grasped that judiciary is
respected not on account of its po,er
- 9-
Page 10
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
to legaliBe injustice on technical
grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is e0pected to
do so.
CCC CCC CCC
12. 'fter referring to the various
judgments reported in (e, 3ndia 3nsurance
!o. Ltd. v. 7hanti 2isra D19*)E 2 7!% 2)).
1rij 3nder 7ingh v. "anshi %am ?191+@3L%
64 =.!. 96. 7ha$untala Fevi 8ain v. "untal
"umari D19)9E1 7!% 100). !oncord of 3ndia
3nsurance !o. Ltd. v. (irmala Fevi D19*9E
11+ 3T% 40*?7!@. Lala 2ata Fin v. '.
(arayanan D19*0E 2 7!% 90. 7tate of
"erala v. #.". "uriyipe 19+1 ?7upp@7!! *2.
2ilavi Fevi v. Fina (ath ?19+2@3 7!! 3))a.
O.=. "athpalia v. La$hmir 7ingh '3% 19+6
7! 1*66. !ollector. Land 'cquisition
v. "atiji ?19+*@ 3LL8 400 7!. =rabha
v. %am =ar$ash "alra 19+* 7upp?1@7!! 399.
G. %amego,da. 2ajor v. 7p. Land
'cquisition Officer D19++E 3 7!% 19+.
7cheduled !aste !o-op. Land O,ning 7ociety
Ltd. v. Hnion of 3ndia '3% 1991 7! *30.
1inod 1ihari 7ingh v. Hnion of 3ndia '3%
1993 7! 1264. 7ha$ambari I !o. v. Hnion of
3ndia '3% 1992 7! 2090. %am "ishan v. H.=.
7%T! 1996 7upp?2@7!! 40* and ;arlu
v. Gangotribai '3% 1996 7! 6)). this !ourt
in 7tate of aryana v. !handra 2ani
2002?163@ #LT 269?7!@ held J
KLLThe e0pression Asufficient causeA
should. therefore. be considered ,ith
pragmatism in justice-oriented process
approach rather than the technical
- 10-
Page 11
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
detention of sufficient case for
e0plaining every dayAs delay. The factors
,hich are peculiar to and characteristic
of the functioning of pragmatic approach
injustice oriented process. The !ourt
should decide the matters on merits unless
the case is hopelessly ,ithout merit. (o
separate standards to determine the cause
laid by the 7tate vis-a-vis private
litigant could be laid to prove strict
standards of sufficient cause. The
Government at appropriate level should
constitute legal cells to e0amine the
cases ,hether any legal principles are
involved for decision by the !ourts or
,hether cases require adjustment and
should authoriBe the officers to ta$e a
decision to give appropriate permission
for settlement. 3n the event of decision
to file the appeal needed prompt action
should be pursued by the officer
responsible to file the appeal and he
should be made personally responsible for
lapses. if any. #qually. the 7tate cannot
be put on the same footing as an
individual. The individual ,ould al,ays be
quic$ in ta$ing the decision ,hether he
,ould pursue the remedy by ,ay of an
appeal or application since he is a person
legally injured ,hile 7tate is an
impersonal machinery ,or$ing through its
officers or servants.5
To the same effect is the judgment of this
!ourt in 7pecial Tehsildar. Land
'cquisition. "erala v. ".M. 'yisumma '3%
199) 7! 2*40.
13. 3n (and "ishore v. 7tate of =unjab
?1994@) 7!! )16 this !ourt under the
- 11-
Page 12
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
peculiar circumstances of the case
condoned the delay in approaching this
!ourt of about 31 years. 3n (.
1ala$rishnan v. 2. "rishnamurthy
200+?22+@#LT 1)2?7!@ this !ourt held that
the purpose of Limitation 'ct ,as not to
destroy the rights. 3t is founded on
public policy fi0ing a life span for the
legal remedy for the general ,elfare. The
primary function of a !ourt is to
adjudicate disputes bet,een the parties
and to advance substantial justice. The
time limit fi0ed for approaching the !ourt
in different situations is not because on
the e0piry of such time a bad cause ,ould
transform into a good cause. The object of
providing legal remedy is to repair the
damage caused by reason of legal injury.
3f the e0planation given does not smac$
mala fides or is not sho,n to have been
put forth as a part of a dilatory
strategy. the !ourt must sho, utmost
consideration to the suitor. 3n this
conte0t it ,as observed in 200+?22+@ #LT
1)2?7!@ :
3t is a0iomatic that condonation of
delay is a matter of discretion of
the !ourt. 7ection 4 of the
Limitation 'ct does not say that
such discretion can be e0ercised
only if the delay is ,ithin a
certain limit. Length of delay is
no matter. acceptability of the
e0planation is the only criterion.
7ometimes delay of the shortest
range may be uncontainable due to a
,ant of acceptable e0planation
,hereas in certain other cases.
delay of a very long range can be
- 12-
Page 13
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
condoned as the e0planation thereof
is satisfactory. Once the !ourt
accepts the e0planation as
sufficient. it is the result of
positive e0ercise of discretion and
normally the superior !ourt should
not disturb such finding. much less
in revisional jurisdiction. unless
the e0ercise of discretion ,as on
,holly untenable grounds or
arbitrary or perverse. 1ut it is a
different matter ,hen the first
!ourt refuses to condone the delay.
3n such cases. the superior !ourt
,ould be free to consider the cause
sho,n for the delay afresh and it
is open to such superior !ourt to
come to its o,n finding even
untrammelled by the conclusion of
the lo,er !ourt.N
10. 3n the case in hand. it is clear from the
evidence on record that the appellant could not pay
court fee due to financial difficulty because of
,hich his suit got rejected. 3t is also pertinent to
note that the appellant had moved the !ourt claiming
his substantive right to his property. The appellant
faced ,ith the situation li$e this. did not deserve
the dismissal of the original suit by the !ourt for
non- payment of court fee. e rather deserved more
- 13-
Page 14
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
compassionate attention from the !ourt of sub 8udge
in the light of the directive principle laid do,n in
'rticle 39' of the !onstitution of 3ndia ,hich is
equally applicable to district judiciary. 3t is the
duty of the courts to see that justice is meted out
to people irrespective of their socio economic and
cultural rights or gender identity.

11. &urther. 7ection 12?h@ of the Legal 7ervices
'uthorities 'ct. 19+* provides that every person ,ho
has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to
legal services under this 'ct if that person is:
>in receipt of annual income less than
rupees nine thousand or such other higher
amount as may be prescribed by the 7tate
Government if the case is before a court
other than the 7upreme !ourt. and less
than rupees t,elve thousand or such other
higher amount as may be prescribed by the
!entral Government. if the case is before
the 7upreme !ourtN
&urther. 7ection 12 of the "erala 7tate Legal
7ervices 'uthorities %ules. 199+ states that:
>12. 'ny person ,hose annual income from
all sources does not e0ceed %upees T,elve
- 14-
Page 15
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
Thousand shall be entitled to legal
services under clause ?h@ of 7ection 12 of
the 'ctN.
Therefore. subject to the submission of an
affidavit of his income. the court fee of the
appellant could have been ,aivered or provided by
the Fistrict Legal 7ervices 'uthority. instead of
rejection of the suit.
12. &urther. in the case of S$,$0 "% M,1,r,s1$r, V.
M,#51,i Pr,!,6i V,s1i ,/ O$10rs
2
7 it has been held
$1,$:
>1*. LL ,e have to consider the combined
effect of 'rticle 21 and 'rticle 39' of the
!onstitution of 3ndia. The right to free
legal aid and speedy trial are guaranteed
fundamental rights under 'rticle 21 of the
!onstitution. The preamble to the
!onstitution of 3ndia assures Ajustice.
social. economic and politicalA. 'rticle
39' of the !onstitution provides Aequal
justiceA and Afree legal aidA. The 7tate
shall secure that the operation of the
legal system promotes justice. 3t means
justice according to la,. 3n a democratic
polity. governed by rule of la,. it should
be the main concern of the 7tate. to have a
proper legal system. 'rticle 39' mandates
2
(1995) 5 SCC 730
- 15-
Page 16
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
that the 7tate shall provide free legal aid
by suitable legislation or schemes or in
any other way to ensure that opportunities
for securing justice are not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities. The principles contained
in 'rticle 39' are fundamental and cast a
duty on the 7tate to secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes
justice. on the basis of equal
opportunities and further mandates to
provide free legal aid in any ,ay-by
legislation or other,ise. so that justice
is not denied to any citiBen by reason of
economic or other disabilities. The crucial
,ords are ?the obligation of the 7tate@
to provide free legal aid 'by suitable
legislation or by schemes' of 'in any other
way', so that opportunities for securing
justice are not denied to any citiBen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.
?#mphasis supplied@LL.N
13. &urther. 'rticle 39' of the !onstitution of
3ndia provides for holistic approach in imparting
justice to the litigating parties. 3t not only
includes providing free legal aid via appointment of
counsel for the litigants. but also includes
ensuring that justice is not denied to litigating
parties due to financial difficulties. Therefore. in
the light of the legal principle laid do,n by this
- 16-
Page 17
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
!ourt. the appellant deserved ,aiver of court fee so
that he could contest his claim on merit ,hich
involved his substantive right. The !ourt of sub
8udge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant
due to non- payment of court fee. ence. ,e set
aside the findings and the decision of the !ourt of
sub 8udge and condone the delay of the appellant in
non-payment of court fee ,hich resulted in rejection
of his suit.
'ns,er to =oint no. 3
16. aving ans,ered =oint nos. 1 and 2 in favour of
the appellant. ,e are inclined to ans,er point no. 3
as ,ell in his favour.

3n the case of M#00s1 D02i 2. U.P. P".0r
C"r+"r,$i" L$/. ,/ Ors.
3
. it ,as held as under:
>14. 3n the application filed by her for
condonation of delay. the 'ppellant made
copious references to the civil suit. the
,rit petition and the special leave
3
2013 (9) SCALE 640
- 17-
Page 18
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
petition filed by her and the fact that
the complaint filed by her ,as admitted
after considering the issue of limitation.
7he also pleaded that the cause for
claiming compensation ,as continuing. The
(ational !ommission completely ignored the
fact that the 'ppellant is not ,ell
educated and she had throughout relied
upon the legal advice tendered to her. 7he
first filed civil suit ,hich. as mentioned
above. ,as dismissed due to non payment of
deficient court fees. 7he then filed ,rit
petition before the igh !ourt and special
leave petition before this !ourt for issue
of a mandamus to the %espondents to pay
the amount of compensation. but did not
succeed. 3t can reasonably be presumed
that substantial time ,as consumed in
availing these remedies. 3t ,as neither
the pleaded case of %espondent (o. 1 nor
any material ,as produced before the
(ational !ommission to sho, that in
pursuing remedies before the judicial
forums. the 'ppellant had not acted bona
fide. Therefore. it ,as an eminently fit
case for e0ercise of po,er under
7ection 26-'?2@ of the 'ct. Hnfortunately.
the (ational !ommission rejected the
'ppellantAs prayer for condonation of
delay on a totally flimsy ground that she
had not been able to substantiate the
assertion about her having made
representation to the %espondents for
grant of compensation.N
14. 3n the case in hand. the igh !ourt. vide its
impugned judgment dated 21.03.2012 held that the
- 18-
Page 19
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
appellant has not provided sufficient grounds for
delay in filing the appeal. This decision of the
igh !ourt is unsustainable in la,. The appellant
has categorically stated that he ,ent to his
advocate5s office at (eyyattin$ara on 26.04.2011 to
enquire about the status of the suit. is advocate
informed him that the learned sub 8udge has rejected
the suit on 11.+.200+ for non-payment of balance
court fee. The advocate claimed that he has informed
the same to the appellant through a postal card but
the appellant claims that the same has not reached
him and he ,as under the impression that his
application for e0tension of time for payment of
court fee ,ill be allo,ed by the learned sub 8udge.
e further claimed that he had applied for
procurement of the certified copy of the decision of
the learned sub 8udge on the same day.
1). The learned senior counsel 2r. ".=. "ylasantha
=illay. appearing on behalf of the respondents
alleged that the appeal of the appellant before this
- 19-
Page 20
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
court is based on ,rong and frivolous grounds. The
material produced by them in support of their
contention is totally based on the merit of the
case. 7ince. ,e are not deciding the merit of the
case. the material produced by the respondents in
support of their contention becomes irrelevant. ;e
have condoned the delay in paying the court fee by
the appellant ,hile ans,ering point nos. 1 and 2. ;e
see no reason in rejecting the application filed by
the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal before the igh !ourt as ,ell.
1*. 3n vie, of the aforesaid reasons. the impugned
judgment passed by the igh !ourt is not sustainable
and is liable to be set aside as per the principle
laid do,n by this !ourt in as much the igh !ourt
erred in rejecting the application for condonation
of delay filed by the appellant. ;e accordingly.
condone the delay in filing the appeal in the igh
!ourt as ,ell.
- 20-
Page 21
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
'ns,er to =oint no. 6
1+. 3n vie, of the reasons assigned ,hile ans,ering
point nos. 1.2 and 3 in favour of the appellant. the
impugned judgment passed by the igh !ourt is set
aside and the application filed by the appellant for
condonation of delay is allo,ed. Therefore. ,e allo,
the appeal by setting aside the judgments and decree
of both the trial court and the igh !ourt and
remand the case bac$ to the trial court for payment
of court fee ,ithin + ,ee$s. 3f for any reason. it
is not possible for the appellant to pay the court
fee. in such event. he is at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional district legal service authority and
Talu$ Legal 7ervices !ommittee see$ing for grant of
legal aid for sanction of court fee amount payable
on the suit before the trial court. 3f such
application is filed. the same shall be considered
by such committee and the same shall be facilitated
to the appellant to get the right of the appellant
adjudicated by the trial court by securing equal
- 21-
Page 22
C.A.@ SLP No.23918 of 2012
justice as provided under 'rticle 39' of the
!onstitution of 3ndia read ,ith the provision of
7ection 12?h@ of the Legal 7ervices 'uthorities 'ct
read ,ith %egulation of "erala 7tate. ;e further
direct the trial court to adjudicate on the rights
of the parties on merit and dispose of the matter as
e0peditiously as possible.
19. The appeal is allo,ed in terms of the
observations and directions given as above to the
trial court. There ,ill be no order as to costs.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((J.
8SUDHANSU J9OTI MU3HOPADHA9A:

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((J.
8V. *OPALA *O;DA:
N0. D0-1i7
N"20450r 257 2013
- 22-