Courts should adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach toward condoning delays under the Limitation Act to ensure that substantial justice is served and meritorious cases are not dismissed on purely technical grounds.

ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 521 days occurred in preferring the application.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that there was a financial crunch and therefore, approaching an Advocate took some time and all these factors have contributed to the above delay.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent–State submits that the delay in filing the application is not sufÏciently explained and therefore, the present application may be rejected.

5. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, it has been observed as under:-

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufÏcient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

6. In view of the principles laid down in the above-referred decision, considering the averments made in the application and as the delay is sufÏciently explained, the delay of 521 days occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

8. Let the Criminal Revision Application be listed in TODAY