##PAGE1##

CM-24196-CII-2025

CM-24197-CII-2025 in

RA-CR-187-2025 in -1-

CR-5037-2025

BALBIR KAUR AND OTHERS

VS

SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate

for the review-applicants/respondents.

* * * *

CM-24196-CII-2025

1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 read with Section 151 CPC is filed for condonation of delay of 80 days

in filing the review application.

2. Learned counsel for the review applicants-respondents contends

that the delay in filing the review application is procedural and not

intentional, therefore, the same be condoned.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the review applicants-

respondents and with his able assistance, carefully perused the whole file of

this case.

4. Before examining the merits of the present application, it is

pertinent to note the settled position that delay is not to be condoned as a

matter of generosity or benevolence; the pursuit of substantial justice cannot

come at the cost of prejudice to the opposite party.

5. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but has substantive

value, being founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 seeks to

ensure that litigants approach the Court within a reasonable period and do

not sleep over their rights. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers

the Court to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown, such

MOHD AYUB

2025.12.19 17:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CM-24196-CII-2025

CM-24197-CII-2025 in

RA-CR-187-2025 in -2-

CR-5037-2025

discretion is neither automatic nor to be exercised as a matter of course.

Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Apex court in Maniben

Devraj Shah v Muncipal corporation of Brigham Mumbai 2012(5) SCC

157,wherein it is held as under :

“The law of limitation is founded on public policy.

The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the

object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure

that they approach the court for vindication of their rights

without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the

concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain

alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the

legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to

condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown

by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the

prescribed period of limitation."

6. Similarly, in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

(2011) 4 SCC 363, Hon’ble the Supreme Court reiterated that a liberal or

justice-oriented approach cannot be invoked to override the substantive law

of limitation. The Apex Court observed that expressions such as “liberal

approach” and “substantial justice” cannot be stretched to obliterate the

mandate of limitation prescribed by statute.

7. More recently, in Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025

INSC 672, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Satish

Chandra Sharma, reaffirmed that although Courts may lean in favour of

MOHD AYUB

2025.12.19 17:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

CM-24196-CII-2025

CM-24197-CII-2025 in

RA-CR-187-2025 in -3-

CR-5037-2025

advancing substantial justice, such indulgence cannot be extended unless the

applicant establishes a legally sufficient and satisfactorily explained cause

for the delay. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduce as thus :

31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the

plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost

duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona-fides of

the explanation offered by the party seeking

condonation rather than starting with the merits of the

main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons

given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of

the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal

footing, the court may consider the merits of the main

matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”

8. It goes without say