People consider being unscathed by hospitals, courts or police stations as a sign of good fortune. A person might need to contact the Court through legal filing or face charges brought against them by others before the Court. In those cases, many ignore the legal repercussions and stay mum. Litigants rely on legal representation to handle their cases after circumstances become unmanageable. Most applications and appeals face rejection because of party delays, which courts use to dismiss these legal requests. People occasionally fail to file court appeals within the prescribed period. Multiple elements, such as illness or missing legal advice or misinterpreted laws, can trigger this occurrence. When deadlines are not met, the main question becomes whether courts can still afford to hear the appeal. The legal principle of “condonation of delay” emerges to address this situation.
Understanding the legal framework for condonation of delay:
All legal processes followed in courts fall under specific legal guidelines known as Statute. The period of limitation in India follows regulations found in a specific statute. The legislative purpose behind this statute is to stop parties from taking uninformed or absent-minded procedures when filing cases or pursuing litigation. The Indian Limitation Act of 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) functions to unite and adjust limitations while creating strict deadlines for starting legal processes. The 1963 Act went into effect on 01-01-1964 through S.O. 3118, Gazette of India dated 09-11-1963. The Act consists of five parts with a total of 32 sections. The Schedule encompasses three distinct sections which include first division being Periods of Limitations for Suits, followed by the second division being Appeals then Applications appear in the last division. The Limitation Act does not apply to distinct legal provisions that designate their own time limits before examination of these additional provisions.
It is essential to understand the definition of “period of limitation” before delving into the subject of condonation of delay. Section 2(j) of the Act defines the period of limitation to represent the time limits specified for all suits, together with appeals and applications under the provisions of the Act.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows a court to accept a delayed appeal or application, as the case may be, if the appellant shows “sufficient cause” for the delay. What qualifies as "sufficient cause" is not defined strictly and is left to the court’s discretion. For better appreciation, Section 5 of the Act of 1963 is quoted herewith
“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
It is observed that a general trend has emerged, where, if an application or suit has been filed by a private individual and it gets allowed/decreed, the Govt/State generally files the Appeal at a belated stage. In case cases, the delay gets beyond the prescribed period of 30 days or 60 days, and extends upto 10 or 15 years. In such cases, the State files an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prays to admit the case on merit. More often, the reasoning behind the delay is mentioned as “due to the routing of files through different departments, there is a delay in filing the appeal.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken strong cognizance to the omnibus reasoning in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master & ors Vs Living Media India Ltd and Anr reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506.
Findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases:
AIR 2012 SC 1506 Office of the Chief Post Master & ors Vs Living Media India Ltd and Anr
"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
(2014) 4 SCC 108 Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Bewerege Board-VS-T. T. Murali Babu
- Pushing File through different departments is not a good ground for condonation of Delay
- Valuable right accrues against the person against whom the petition is filed.
- One cannot be permitted to sleep like Kumbhakarna & rise like a phoenix
- If one chooses to sleep over his right for a substantial period, he has no right to approach the Court and claim equity
(1987) 2 SCC 107, AIR 1987 SC 1353: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors
"....ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day’s delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.."
2024 (4) SCALE 846/ [2024]4SCR 241: PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY LRS AND ORS vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
Here, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days, laid down principles for condonation of delay, which are :
- 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;
- 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:
From the aforesaid judgments, it is now settled position in law that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay, especially when substantial justice is at stake and there is no straight jacket formula for it, however the law of limitation must be applied strictly in certain cases, where there are deliberate laches from the side of the litigants and in those cases, delay cannot be condoned as if it were a matter of right. As such, filing an appeal after the deadline does not automatically mean the case is over. Courts do have the power to condone the delay, but this power is not used lightly. The applicant must clearly explain the reasons behind the delay and show that they acted in good faith.