INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Dr.
Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh
v. Raghunath Kisan Saindane, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 914, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the important points that are to be considered
while deciding an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
seeking condonation of delay.
SECTION 5
Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that whenever
any appeal or application is made before a court, such application or appeal may
be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant/applicant satisfies
the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal/application
within the stipulated time period.
CONTEXT
Briefly speaking, an Appeal was preferred before a High
Court that had a delay of 650 days in its filing. The reason for delay was
explained as lack of knowledge of the decision of the lower court due to
non-service of notice due to change of address. Such plea was not accepted by the
High Court for condoning the delay. Hence, the matter traversed to the Supreme Court
wherein following important observations were made: -
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court cited the case of Perumon Bhagvathy
Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321, wherein it was observed
that: -
a. The words ‘sufficient cause’ in S. 5 may receive a
liberal construction where no inaction or negligence or mala fide is imputable
to the applicant pressing the application for condonation of delay.
b. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the
Court and S. 5 does not prescribe any particular time limit for exercise of
such discretion.
c. The length of the delay is immaterial, and the cause of the
delay must be acceptable for condoning the same.
d. Even if a delay is of a very short duration, then also
such delay may not be condoned if the explanation or the cause of delay is not
found to be satisfactory.
e. Once a court accepts the explanation or the cause of
delay, then the superior courts must refrain themselves from disturbing such finding
of condonation of delay, unless the exercise of discretion by the Court below
is arbitrary or perverse.
f. When the court of first instance refuses to condone delay,
then the superior court is “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.”
g. “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.”
h. “There is no presumption that delay in approaching
the court is always deliberate” and “in every case of delay,
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is
not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a
dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But
when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the
party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance
of the explanation.”
Secondly, the Court noted that the information relating to the
status of the judicial proceedings to the litigants is usually given by the
respective counsels. If such information is not properly given to the
litigating parties by their counsels, then the parties cannot be faulted with.
Thirdly, the Court opined that when notice of judicial
proceedings is not served upon a litigant due to change of address, a lenient
view ought to be taken while considering the application for condonation of
delay.
And lastly, according to the Court, appropriate conditions
may be imposed while allowing an application for condonation of delay. Thus,
the court, ultimately, allowed the application for condonation of delay in the present
case.
Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my
concluding remarks?
After reading this case, it could be said that following
points need to be considered while considering an application for condonation
of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act.
a. S. 5 provides discretion to the court to condone delay in
moving an application if there is ‘sufficient cause’.
b. Length of the delay is immaterial, and the cause of the delay
is relevant.
c. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights
of the parties but to curb the dilatory tactics adopted by them.
d. “There is no presumption that delay in approaching
the court is always deliberate.”
e. It is the duty of the legal counsels to inform their
clients about the dates of hearing; and
f. Appropriate conditions may be imposed while allowing an
application for condonation of delay.
Thus, I hope that the nature and the scope of S. 5 of
Limitation Act is clear by now.
I appreciate the sincere efforts for helpin search engine. Here at this juncture, I will like to know, that when litigant him self did not choose to prefer an appeal against the wrong/illegal judgment for 15 years, till he died, can his legal representatives file delay condonation application thereafter 31 years time of delay, on the ground of knowledge
ReplyDeleteAppellant and Advocate say that they lost track of the case and did not appear before the Commission on 2 occasions in their Appeal, is this sufficient cause for condoning delay?
ReplyDelete