'Merits Of The Case Not Required To Be Considered In Condoning Delay' : Supreme Court Explains Principles For Delay Condonation

While refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in preferring an appeal, the Supreme Court on Monday (April 08) laid down eight principles by providing harmonious construction to Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Bench Comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal laid down the principles.

"On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.”

The aforesaid principles in the Judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal were laid down while deciding the plea of the Legal Heirs of a litigant who had challenged the decision of the High Court, whereby the High Court had dismissed the litigant's application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the dismissal of the reference petition by the Trial Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants (legal heirs of the litigant) contended that since she was staying in her matrimonial house, therefore, she couldn't have known about the rejection of the reference by the trial court order dated 24.09.1999.

The appellants stated that it was only on 28.05.2015 that they got to know that a reference was dismissed on 24.09.1999, whereupon the appeal was immediately filed along with an application before the High Court to condone the delay in its filing, which was subsequently dismissed by the High Court.

The appellants contended that the delay caused in preferring the appeal must be condoned in light of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as they have the 'sufficient cause' explaining the delay.

Rejecting the appellant's contention, the court observed as follows:

“There is no occasion for us to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the High Court for the reasons recorded. First, the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing the proposed appeal. Secondly, most of the claimants have accepted the decision of the reference court. Thirdly, in the event the petitioners have not been substituted and made party to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did. Thus, there is apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, in our opinion, High Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”

“Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence.”, the court clarified.

Based on the above premise, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Madurima Tatia, Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Girish Chowdhary, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv.

Case Title: PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY LRS AND ORS vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment