Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature.

In the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LR’S and Ors. Versus Special Deputy Collector (LA)

 

Facts

Appellants preferred a reference against acquisition of subject land for not being satisfied with the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Subsequently, the reference came to be dismissed on merits on 24.09.1999 vide a common judgment. After about 5/6 years, the Legal representatives of one of the claimants in the original reference filed an appeal against the judgment dated 24.09.1999 before the Hon’ble High Court along with a condonation of delay of 5659 days which was dismissed on the ground that the explanation for proposed appeal beyond limitation was not satisfactory.

Thus, the Appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for dismissing the application.

 

Issue

Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the proposed appeal?

 

Analysis

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court provided a harmonious consideration of the following provisions of law Section 3 (appeal preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed) and Section 5 (empowers the courts to admit an appeal even if it is preferred after expiry of Limitation) of the Limitation Act, 1963 which are as follows –

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.

 

  1. 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.