Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. Subramaniam, JJ.
T.V. Venkatasamy Chettiar – Appellant
versus
K. Ayyadurai – Respondent
AS SR No.6826 of 2023 and CMP No.2179 of 2023
Decided on 7.2.2023
Limitation Act, 1963 – S.5 – Condonation of Delay of 1781 days - No justifiable reasons found – Condonation of delay is an exception – Mode and manner of condonation of delay explained - Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantive and the Rule is to institute the proceedings within the time limit prescribed under the enactment - Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts while exercising the powers of discretion is expected to exercise judiciously and enormous delay in instituting the proceedings can be condoned only if the reasons are substantiated and acceptable. Insufficient reasons cannot be considered for the purpose of condoning the long delay – Thus, Courts may take a lenient view by condoning the long delay in filing proceedings. In the event of condoning long delay, the rights of the other parties are prejudiced and the other party, who secured the decree few years back cannot be in a position to contest the case after long delay. Thus the Courts are not expected to condone the long delay in a mechanical manner. Law of Limitation cannot be diluted by condoning the enormous delay, wherein there is no sufficient reasons are furnished – Further held, Courts have taken a clear view that the intention of the parties in filing appeal belatedly after causing prejudice to the interest of the other parties, then also the delay cannot be condoned by exercising the power of discretion. Therefore all these aspects are to be considered. Mechanical or routine approach is impermissible, may be permissible in respect of the delay of short span and not otherwise – On facts, the petitioner/appellant has not furnished any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the long delay of 1781 days, petition dismissed – CPC, 1908 – S.96 – Appeal. [Paras 3 to 12]
Result: Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the law of limitation and condonation of delay are as follows:
Un-condonable Delay: Delay that is un-condonable cannot be routinely condoned by courts. The law of limitation is a substantive law that prescribes a specific time frame within which proceedings must be initiated (!) (!) .
Condonation of Delay: Condonation is an exception to the rule and must be exercised judiciously. Courts are expected to consider whether the reasons for delay are substantiated and acceptable before exercising discretion (!) (!) .
Power of Discretion: While courts have the power to condone delay, this discretion must be exercised carefully, especially when the delay causes prejudice to the other party. The intention behind the delay and the impact on the other party are crucial considerations (!) (!) .
Short vs. Long Delay: Routine or mechanical condonation of short delays may be permissible, but long delays require a more cautious approach. Condoning long delays can prejudice the rights of the other party, especially if they have secured a decree years earlier and are unable to effectively contest the case (!) (!) .
Sufficient Reasons: The reasons furnished for delay must be sufficient, genuine, and acceptable. Insufficient or false reasons cannot justify condoning a long delay (!) (!) .
Principles for Condonation: The reasons for delay should be examined in light of principles such as bona fides, diligence, and the absence of mala fide conduct. Delay caused by deliberate inaction or dilatory tactics is unlikely to be condoned (!) (!) .
Public Policy and Equity: The law aims to balance the interests of justice and fairness. While a liberal approach is encouraged, it must not undermine the purpose of limitation laws, which is to prevent indefinite delay and protect the rights of parties who have acted diligently (!) (!) .
Prejudice to Opposite Party: Condoning long delays can cause prejudice to the other party, especially if they have lost the opportunity to contest the case effectively due to the delay. The impact on the other party’s rights is a significant factor (!) (!) .
Record of Reasons: Courts must record clear, cogent, and convincing reasons for exercising discretion to condone delay. Exercising discretion without proper reasoning can lead to injustice and is contrary to judicial principles (!) (!) .
Overall Approach: While the law favors a liberal approach to condoning delays, this is not an absolute rule. Each case must be decided on its facts, considering whether the delay was due to genuine reasons, the conduct of the parties, and the potential prejudice involved (!) (!) .
In summary, courts are expected to exercise their discretion judiciously, ensuring that delays are condoned only when justified by acceptable reasons and without causing undue prejudice to the other party. The law emphasizes the importance of fairness, bona fides, and sound legal principles in such decisions.
ORDER (COMMON)
CMP No.2179 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of 1781 days in filing the appeal suit against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.46 of 2014 dated 12.12.2018.
2. AS SR No.6826 of 2023 is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018 made in OS No.46 of 2014 on the file of the District Judge Court No.II, Kancheepuram.
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money and based on the promissory note. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 12.12.2018. However, the Appeal Suit against the decree has been instituted with the delay of 1781 days.
4. The reason stated by the petitioner is that the learned counsel, appearing for him before the Trial Court, failed to inform him about the decree passed by the Court on 12.12.2018. He informed about the decree only on 21.12.2021 and in the meanwhile, the decree-holder filed EP No.95 of 2019 on 09.04.2019.
5. It is not made clear whether the petitioner has received summons in the execution proceedings in the year 2019. While-so, the earlier statement made by the petitioner that he received information from the learned counsel on 21.12.2021, cannot be trusted upon.
6. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the CMP No.2179 of 2023 reveals that there is no candid reason for the purpose of condoning the enormous delay of 1781 days.
7. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantive and the Rule is to institute the proceedings within the time limit prescribed under the enactment.
8. Condonation of delay is an exception. The Courts while exercising the powers of discretion is expected to exercise judiciously and enormous delay in instituting the proceedings can be condoned only if the reasons are substantiated and acceptable. Insufficient reasons cannot be considered for the purpose of condoning the long delay.
9. No doubt, the Courts may take a lenient view by condoning the long delay in filing proceedings. In the event of condoning long delay, the rights of the other parties are prejudiced and the other party, who secured the decree few years back cannot be in a position to contest the case after long delay. Thus the Courts are not expected to condone the long delay in a mechanical manner. Law of Limitation cannot be diluted by condoning the enormous delay, wherein there is no sufficient reasons are furnished.
10. The legal principles to be followed for condoning the delay is well settled and this Court also considered the said principles in C.M.P.Nos.8358 & 8359 of 2018 in AS.SR.No.32087 of 2018 dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:—
“10. In respect of said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Zulaiha Syed Mohideen Vs. D. Visalakshi Ammal & Others reported in MANU/TN/2222/2013, wherein the Court made following observations;
“5. Before going into the merits of the case, first of all, it should be stated that in a case of this nature for condonation of delay, it is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay. In other words, for condonation of delay, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay. Unless proper explanation is offered, the Courts could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. It is also settled that when a court has exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay, the appellate Court, in exercise of its discretion, should not ordinarily interfere with such decision unless the discretion exercised is arbitrary and overlooking the interest accrued to another party to the dispute. The appellate Court should also see whether the trial court
(1) Un-condonable delay - Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantive and the Rule is to institute the proceedings within the time limit....
Law of Limitation cannot be diluted by condoning enormous delay, wherein there is no sufficient reasons are furnished.
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
