SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P.Sethi, JJ.

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 6761 of 2000.(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 2756/2000). D/d. 24.11.2000.

Nanjappan - Petitioner

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company - Respondent

Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Condonation or delay - Appeal filed within time but the same was returned for representation on remittance of full court fee - Delay on account of the financial crisis which disabled the appellant from raising the balance court fee - Delay condoned on humanitarian grounds.

[Para 2]

ORDER

1. Leave granted. Appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on 2.9.1997 challenging the judgment delivered by a single judge on 19.6.1997. As the court fee has not been paid in full the Letters Patent Appeal was returned for representation on remittance of the full court fee. Thereafter, the Letters Patent Appeal was re-presented and an application was filed for condoning the delay in re-presenting the same. But the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application for condoning the delay and consequently rejected the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. At the time Letters Patent Appeal was filed appellant remitted a court fee of Rs. 100/- on 2.9.1997 itself, but it was noted by the Registry of the High Court that the correct court fee payable was Rs. 2,222.50. Appellant had to raise that amount. His physical condition was very pitiable as his left leg was amputated in consequence of the accident. The Division Bench has stated that he had not shown any good ground to condone the delay. In fact he has stated in the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay that it was entirely due to the financial crisis which disabled him from raising the balance court fee which at that stage was a difficult thing for him to do. We feel that the Division Bench has not considered the appellant's predicament as a consequence of the accident. A broader and more humanitarian approach could have been made, particularly when he filed an appeal within time with a court fee which he thought to be sufficient, though erroneously. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. We condone the delay in re-presenting the Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. Now the appeal will be disposed of in accordance with law afresh on merits untrammelled by any observation made in the impugned order. Learned counsel then made a request for a direction to have the appeal disposed of at the earliest.

3. We permit the appellant to move the High Court in that regard also.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.