Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
H. Guruswamy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.9719 of 2020)
Decided On : 08-01-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties – They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly – Length of delay is definitely a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of case, he cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against technical considerations – While considering plea for condonation of delay, court must not start with merits of main matter – Court owes duty to first ascertain bona fides of explanation offered by party seeking condonation – It is only if sufficient cause assigned by litigant and opposition of other side is equally balanced that court may bring into aid merits of matter for the purpose of condoning delay – Question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration – Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and that of Trial Court hereby restored. (Paras 15, 16, 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 30.01.2020 in Misc. First Appeal No. 7220 of 2014 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by which order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on file of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru rejecting application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be set aside and thereby appeal was allowed.
Findings of Court:
High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a Judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between parties.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The rules of limitation are designed not to destroy the rights of parties but to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure remedies are sought promptly. They are rooted in principles of public policy and equity (!) (!) .
The length of delay in filing applications or suits is a significant factor that courts must consider when deciding whether to condone such delay. An inordinate delay, especially without sufficient cause, can lead to the loss of rights to have the matter considered on merits (!) (!) .
When assessing pleas for condonation of delay, courts must first determine the bona fides of the explanation provided by the party seeking relief. Only if the explanation is genuine and the opposition is balanced may the court consider the merits of the case to justify condoning the delay (!) (!) .
The concept of a "liberal approach" or "substantial justice" should not override the fundamental principles of limitation law. Such approaches should not be employed to frustrate or bypass the statutory period prescribed for filing legal remedies (!) (!) .
In the specific case, the court found that the High Court erred in condoning a delay of approximately 2200 days without properly considering the reasons for delay or the principles of limitation law. The delay was deemed inordinate, and the reasons provided were insufficient, leading to the conclusion that the application for recall was barred by limitation (!) (!) (!) .
The original suit, initiated decades ago, had already been dismissed for default, and subsequent attempts to revive or recall the case were found to be barred by the principles of res judicata and limitation. The court emphasized that the rights of the parties had already been adjudicated, and the delay in seeking relief was not justified (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the proper judicial approach involves a careful, unbiased assessment of the bona fides of the explanation for delay before considering the merits, and that undue leniency can undermine the integrity of the legal process (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court set aside the order of the High Court that had condoned the delay and restored the order of the Trial Court, reaffirming the importance of adhering to limitation principles to uphold justice and legal certainty (!) (!) .
These points collectively underscore the importance of timely filing, the need for genuine reasons when seeking condonation, and the judiciary's obligation to uphold the law of limitation to ensure justice is not compromised by undue delays.
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 30.01.2020 in Misc. First Appeal No. 7220 of 2014 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) by which the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be set aside and thereby the appeal was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:
a. The suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 1/11 situated at Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka measuring 45 yards East to West and 55 yards North to South was purchased by one Venkatappa in the year 1916. Thereafter, the said Venkatappa sold a portion of the suit property and retained the balance portion measuring 45 yards East to West and 27.5 yards North to South. Vide a registered family partition, the suit schedule property came to be divided between Venkatappa and Muniga @ Chikonu (Brother of Venkatappa) wherein Venkatappa had received 29 Ankanas along with 1/3rd share and Chikonu had received 10 Ankanas of house along with 2/3rd share.
b. A suit for injunction being O.S No.615/1960 came to be filed by Venkatappa against his family members which came to be subsequently withdrawn on or about 14.06. 1965.
c. Initially one C.R. Narayana Reddy had filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants herein being O.S. No. 33/1971 with respect to the land along with a house in Byrasandra Village before the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore which came to be disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 30.08.1971 with a direction to the appellants herein to refund the earnest amount that had been paid to them.
d. The deceased Respondent No.1 herein namely Sri. A. Krishnaiah had impleaded himself as Defendant No. 14 in O.S No.33/1971 claiming to have purchased the suit property from the Defendants No.3 to 13 respectively in O.S. No.33/1971. The Civil Court had recorded a categorical finding that the conduct of the deceased Respondent No.1 did not seem to be bona fide and that the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and that the deceased Respondent No. 1 did not seem to be a bona fide purchaser and was not entitled to any relief with regard to the suit property.
e. Thereafter on the very same cause of action, the deceased Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 104/1972 seeking similar reliefs against the appellants. The said suit came to be dismissed on merits vide Judgment and Order dated 08.12.1975.
f. Despite failing in two rounds of proceedings and not challenging the Orders passed in O.S. No.33/1971 and O.S No.104/1972, the deceased Respondent proceeded to file yet one another suit for possession and other reliefs by way of O.S. No.603/1977 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The said suit came to be eventually renumbered as O.S. No. 1833/1980.
g. The O.S. No.1833/1980 came to be dismissed on the first occasion for default in the year 1983. In lieu of the same, the Respondents herein had filed Misc. Petition No.1063/1984 seeking to restore the said suit which came to be allowed in the year 1984. Thereafter, the Defendant No.4 in O.S. No.1833/1980 namely Shri. Nagaraja passed away on 04.12.1999. The Respondents having come to know of the same and having been granted sufficient opportunities on 06.03.2000, 18.07.2000 and 22.08.2000 respectively, failed to bring the legal heirs of the Defendant No.4 on record as a consequence of which, the O.S. No.1833/1980 came to be dismissed as having stood abated vide Order dated 22.08.2000.
h. The Respondents herein/Plaintiffs in their application for recall dated 06.03.2006 stated that the wife of the Deceased Respondent No. 1 namely Smt. Jayalakshmi G. who is one of the Respondents/Plaintiffs had been suffering from some ailment and had to be admitted in hospital on 09.02.2000. She al
(1) Limitation – Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties – They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.(2) Question of l....
The court affirmed that a delay in challenging a decree cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the application lacks an adequate explanation for prolonged inaction.
Point of law: Once court accepts 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 revisiiona....
The court emphasized the necessity of providing sufficient cause for delay in legal proceedings and the importance of vigilance in pursuing appeals.
The court confirmed the agreement for sale was valid, limiting the ability to challenge the decree based on delay and highlighting insufficient grounds for procedural impropriety.
Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
