High Court · 2025

In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed.

6. Considered the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that proper explanation was given for condoning the delay in the affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay, and the submission advanced by learned State Counsel and perused the records.

7. This Court is of the view that at this stage, the issue of limitation has to be considered and as such this Court is only considering the facts which are relevant for answering the question as to "whether explanation given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is just and proper".

8. The aforesaid is in view of the law settled. As per settled law for the purposes of condonation of delay, the concerned party has to explain sufficient cause for not approaching the court/authority concerned within time prescribed under the statutory provision. Page No. 9 of 20

9. The law on the issue of dealing with the applications for condonation of delay is well settled. This Court as also Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments have held that an opportunity of hearing should be given and the hearing should not be shut down and in the said judgments, it is also settled that liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented and non pedantic approach should be taken by the Courts concerned while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned. The Courts concerned while dealing with such applications should also consider the fact that whether the delay has sufficiently been explained or not. The manner of exercising discretion in matters relating to condonation of delay is fairly well settled and it has been consistently held that while exercising discretion in such matters, the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, should be construed in a liberal manner and in the absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as dilatory tactics, the Court should normally condone the delay. It is also settled principle of law that the discretion if exercised by the Courts concerned then the Appellate Courts should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts concerned, if the discretion so exercised has been exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496 has held that as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. In that case the appeal was filed against an ex-parte decree after eight years and the District Court as well as the High Court had rejected the matter on the ground of delay. However, setting aside the order of the High Court, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "... we are inclined to the view that, as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. Therefore, we think that the order of the High Court should not have been passed in the interest of Justice which always informs the power under S. 115 C.P.C. …"

11. The manner of exercising discretion by Courts in matters relating to condonation of delay was subject matter of consideration in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy; (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Page No. 10 of 20 "9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always Page No. 11 of 20

In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed.

6. Considered the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that proper explanation was given for condoning the delay in the affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay, and the submission advanced by learned State Counsel and perused the records.

7. This Court is of the view that at this stage, the issue of limitation has to be considered and as such this Court is only considering the facts which are relevant for answering the question as to "whether explanation given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is just and proper".

8. The aforesaid is in view of the law settled. As per settled law for the purposes of condonation of delay, the concerned party has to explain sufficient cause for not approaching the court/authority concerned within time prescribed under the statutory provision. Page No. 9 of 20

9. The law on the issue of dealing with the applications for condonation of delay is well settled. This Court as also Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments have held that an opportunity of hearing should be given and the hearing should not be shut down and in the said judgments, it is also settled that liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented and non pedantic approach should be taken by the Courts concerned while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned. The Courts concerned while dealing with such applications should also consider the fact that whether the delay has sufficiently been explained or not. The manner of exercising discretion in matters relating to condonation of delay is fairly well settled and it has been consistently held that while exercising discretion in such matters, the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, should be construed in a liberal manner and in the absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as dilatory tactics, the Court should normally condone the delay. It is also settled principle of law that the discretion if exercised by the Courts concerned then the Appellate Courts should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts concerned, if the discretion so exercised has been exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496 has held that as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. In that case the appeal was filed against an ex-parte decree after eight years and the District Court as well as the High Court had rejected the matter on the ground of delay. However, setting aside the order of the High Court, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "... we are inclined to the view that, as far as possible, Courts' discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. Therefore, we think that the order of the High Court should not have been passed in the interest of Justice which always informs the power under S. 115 C.P.C. …"

11. The manner of exercising discretion by Courts in matters relating to condonation of delay was subject matter of consideration in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy; (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Page No. 10 of 20 "9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always Page No. 11 of 20