NEW DELHI: Expressing its anguish over high courts for not following its rulings and ignoring judicial precedence in passing orders, Supreme Court on Monday said that it was against judicial discipline which cannot be ignored.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said that high courts cannot ignore Supreme Court’s precedence in deciding the case and raised question on how could the Madhya Pradesh high court condone delay of four years and nine months on behalf of state govt in filing appeal in a case.The apex court in its various rulings had held repeatedly that state or any of its instrumentalities cannot be given preferential treatment for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Contrary to SC’s judgments, the HC had in its order on Sept 1 said “It is well settled in law that in the matter of condonation of delay liberal approach has to be adopted by court, therefore, on due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by the affidavit interim application is allowed and the delay of 1612 days is hereby condoned”. As soon as the matter was called, the bench did not mince words in criticising the order and said that it was against judicial discipline. “How can a delay of over 1,600 days be condoned? We are sorry to say but we have to someday put our feet down to send a message… There is something called judicial discipline and high courts cannot ignore our judgments,” it said.The court was hearing an appeal against HC order for condoning delay. The petition, filed through advocate Dushyant Parashar, said that the HC passed the order on the basis of the state’s affidavit which had no explanation for delay and was only an eye wash, which was accepted by the HC. The case pertains to a land ownership dispute and petitioner alleged that HC was wrong by condoning the state machinery’s callous and lackadaisical attitude.”The impugned interim order condones the delay of 4 years and 9 months of the state in filing first appeal which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, in whose favour the declaration of ownership has been rendered by district judge, Ratlam. The petitioner being the owner is in continuous possession of the land and is doing his agricultural activity and taking care of his family, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudices and irreparable injury and loss if the operation of the impugned order is not stayed. Further the basis of inordinate delay, the affidavit of state having no explanation for such inordinate delay, only an eye wash, which has been accepted by HC and condoned the delay of 4 years and 9 months. The impugned order of HC is in derogation of strict legal principles laid down in the catena of the judgments,” the petition said.
