Inordinate and unexplained delay in legal proceedings cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity, and a suit for declaration of title over land in another's possession is not maintainable without seeking the relief of possession.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-10433-C-2015

This is an application under Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 1312 days in re-filing the appeal.

The reason mentioned by the applicant-appellant for condonation of such inordinate delay in re-filing the present appeal is that:-

“3… … …The appellant No.1 also suffered with the fever of typhoid and he could not be recovered from the said fever of typhoid and the appellant No.1 used to get medicines from desi hakims, however for ¾ years the appellant No.1 continuously suffered with the typhoid and therefore he could not keep in his mind that he was called by the counsel to get the appeal refiled. Even though the counsel for the appellants informed regarding refiling of the appeal, however due to the circumstances narrated above, the appellant No.1 could not contact the counsel and therefore appeal could not be refiled within the specified period of refiling.”

The aforesaid reason given by the applicant is neither believable nor medically possible for anyone to suffer from Typhoid for 3-4 years.

Furthermore, no medical evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by the applicant to substantiate his said assertion.

Even otherwise, above explanation given by the applicant is cryptic and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1312 days in re-filing the appeal. Reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2537649, decided on 03.04.2024, as under:-

“25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. 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 the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public