Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside dismissal of MGF Developments’ appeal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the dismissal of an appeal filed by MGF Developments Ltd before a Gurugram court in a litigation involving approximately 31 acres of prime land. The bench held that the 38-day delay in filing the appeal could not be treated as inordinate or irredeemable.

“In the present case, the plaintiff-company has significant interests at stake, involving approximately 31 acres of valuable land worth crores of rupees. The delay in filing the appeal was limited to 38 days — a period not so excessive as to be considered inordinate or irredeemable. In view of the judicially recognised principle that litigants do not ordinarily benefit from delays and that justice must not be denied solely on technical grounds, the delay could have reasonably been condoned, particularly by imposing appropriate costs on the appellant as a measure to compensate the opposing party,” Justice Deepak Gupta observed.

The bench, during the course of hearing, was told that a civil suit “MGF Developments Limited versus Cosmo Propbuild Pvt Ltd and others” was filed before a Gurugram court. But an application for the plaint’s rejection was allowed by a Gurugram Civil Judge (Sr Division) in May last year.

The order was assailed by plaintiff MGF Developments before Gurugram District Court. An application to condone the 38-day delay in filing the appeal was also moved. But an Additional District Judge, vide impugned order dated January 13, dismissed the application for condoning the delay, following which the appeal itself was dismissed being time barred

Justice Gupta observed the court below noted that the company’s authorised representative attributed the delay, among other things, to illness. The court concluded that he had not approached it with clean hands and had submitted a false affidavit. “Nonetheless, the critical question remains — whether this alone should be sufficient to dismiss the appeal outright without considering it on its merits,” the bench observed.

The court added misrepresentation was not by any director/managing director. “While such conduct is certainly improper and should not be encouraged, the legal position regarding the interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act mandates a justice-oriented and pragmatic approach, rather than a rigid and overly technical one,” Justice Gupta added

The bench held that the lower court’s “outright dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating it on merits, especially in light of the substantial stakes involved, runs contrary to the spirit of Section 5 and the broader objective of the legal system to dispense substantive justice”.

Restoring the appeal, the high court set aside the impugned order subject to the appellant-plaintiff paying Rs 1 lakh costs to the “contesting respondents”.

Haryana Tribune