Delay should not be excused as matter of generosity; Party must prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter.

 In the matter of Union of India &Anr. Versus Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through his LR decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 03.04.2024

Facts

A civil suit for possession was passed against the Appellant. Suit was decreed. Appeal filed against the order of Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune to the District Judge Pune who upheld the order of trial court. Appellant preferred a challenge to High Court after a delay of delay of 12 years and 158 days which was dismissed by the High Court.

Hence, aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Issue

Can condonation of delay for a period of 12 years and 158 days can be granted in favour of the appellants?

Analysis

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the Order of the High Court observed that the length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for 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.

It was also observed that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation.

The Court also held that it is 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.

In the present matter it was observed that even after 43 years of litigation the Respondent was not able to reap the benefits of the decree. It was also noted that the Appellants had failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and thus appeal was dismissed.