SC lays down principles in condonation of delay
In Pathapathi Subba Reddy (Died) By Legal Heirs & Others v Special Deputy Collector (LA), the Supreme Court (SC) laid down eight principles to be followed while seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals, by providing harmonious construction to Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The principles were formulated 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 of 5659 days in filing an appeal against the dismissal of the reference petition by the Trial Court.
The principles to be followed
Those principles are as follows: –
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
- 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, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.
Summing up
The SC added that the 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.
