'It Appears Union Wants To Fix Its Own Period Of Limitation' : Supreme Court Rejects Govt's Time-Barred Challenge In 43-Year-Old Suit

Expressing displeasure with the approach adopted by the Union of India for seeking condonation of more than 12 years of delay in filing the restoration suit, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 3) refused to condone the delay stating that it would be a mockery of justice if the delay gets condoned, as it would result in pushing the decree-holder to undergo the lengthy litigation process again. “From the tenor of the approach of the appellants (Union of India), it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala said. While upholding the decision of the High Court which had refused to condone the delay while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the constitution, the Judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala stated that the courts while considering the plea of condonation of delay must not start with the merits of the matter, and the delay can be condoned only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. “This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent (private party) has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.”, the court observed while refusing to condone the delay. The court clarified that due to the long inaction of the Union, the enjoyment of the benefits of the decree by the decree-holder/respondent could not be denied to him indefinitely."It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned."“We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.”, the court observed. Background The gist of the dispute was that property was leased out to the Union/appellant by the respondent/private person, however, due to a breach of certain terms and conditions, the respondent instituted the civil suit in 1981 for the recovery of the possession from the Union. The decree was passed in favor of the respondent by the civil court in 1987. Challenging the civil court's decision, the appellant/Union preferred to appeal before the First Appellate Court but was unsuccessful. In 1993, the Union filed a writ petiiton under Article 227 before the High Court challenging the Appellate Court's decision. In 2006, this writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.In 2013, the respondent initiated proceedings to execute the decree against the union.While so, in 2019, the Union filed an application to restore the writ petition which was dismissed for default in 2006.However, the High Court refused to allow the application citing a gross delay occurred in preferring the application seeking restoration.Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Union/Appellant approached before the Supreme Court. Conclusion “In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.”, the court said. Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.Venkataramani, AG Mr. Col.R.Balasubramanian, Sr.Adv.(NP) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG (NP) Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek...

'It Appears Union Wants To Fix Its Own Period Of Limitation' : Supreme Court Rejects Govt's Time-Barred Challenge In 43-Year-Old Suit

Yash Mittal

Tags