Supreme Court: The period excluded U/S 14 of Limitation Act can not be counted for computing period for condonation of delay

 It is an accepted position that the appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court on 24.02.2018, which was not entertained vide the order dated 07.03.2018 on the ground that the appellant should approach the Appellate Authority. The appellant is entitled to ask for exclusion of the said period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned. {Para 3}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.)

Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill  Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.

Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (@SLP(C) No. 11225 of 2022)

Decided on November 14, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1790.

1. Leave granted.

2. The impugned order passed by the High Court affirming the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Vijayawada, holding that the delay is beyond condonable period is unsustainable in law.

3. It is an accepted position that the appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court on 24.02.2018, which was not entertained vide the order dated 07.03.2018 on the ground that the appellant should approach the Appellate Authority. The appellant is entitled to ask for exclusion of the said period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned. Of course for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied.1

4. In the facts of the present case, we find that the period from the date of filing of the writ petition on 24.02.2018 and the date on which it was dismissed as not entertained viz. 07.03.2018, should have been excluded. The writ proceedings were maintainable, but not entertained. Bona fides of the appellant in filing the writ petition are not challenged. Further, immediately after the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant did file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. On exclusion of the aforesaid period, the appeal preferred by the appellant would be within the condonable period. Accordingly, we direct that the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant would be treated as allowed. The delay is directed to be condoned.

5. Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed with the direction that the Appellant Authority would examine the appeal on merits.

6. We clarify that have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Print Page