Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The courts emphasize that each case depends on its facts and circumstances, and a long, unexplained delay is unlikely to be condoned. Conversely, a reasonable explanation for delay, even if lengthy, can be sufficient if it shows bona fide intent and no negligence ["Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Vellore VS Arumuga Mudaliyar (Died) Gnanasoundari - Madras"], ["T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases"], ["T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases"].
Analysis and Conclusion
References:- ["Vaghjibhai Amarshibhai Sapra VS Dilipbhai Ajubhai Dodiya - Gujarat"]- ["ARUN M K vs AJAYAN - Consumer National"]- ["A. Punnaiah VS Union of India - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Gulshan Homz Pvt. Ltd. Noida Thru. Its Authorized Signatory VS Sushant Arora - Allahabad"]- ["Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik vs Sushilabai Mahadu Pagar - Bombay"]- ["Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. VS Karnataka Housing Board - Supreme Court"]- ["North East Frontier Railways VS Lalnawta S/o Dengchhunga - Gauhati"]- ["Central Bureau of Investigation VS Binod Kumar Maheswari - Calcutta"]- ["Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Vellore VS Arumuga Mudaliyar (Died) Gnanasoundari - Madras"]- ["T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases"]- ["T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases"]- ["M. Dayabary (Deceased) Mounisamy VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Puducherry - Madras"]- ["Srinivasan VS Dhanabal - Madras"]
In legal proceedings, time is of the essence, especially when it comes to filing appeals or applications within limitation periods. A common phrase heard in courts is every day’s delay must be explained. But does this mean litigants must account for each single day in excruciating detail? This question often arises under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows courts to condone delays for sufficient cause.
This blog post dives into judicial interpretations, highlighting a shift towards a rational, common-sense approach rather than hyper-technical scrutiny. We'll explore landmark rulings, contrasting views from various cases, and practical tips for practitioners and litigants. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The phrase every day’s delay must be explained has been clarified across multiple Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Courts generally discourage a pedantic interpretation that demands day-by-day justifications. Instead, they advocate a liberal, pragmatic manner, focusing on overall circumstances to ensure substantial justice.
As observed in Collector (LA), Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, the Supreme Court stated:
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. MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408
This sets the tone: rigid insistence on daily explanations can defeat access to justice, especially for non-deliberate delays. Key points include:- No requirement for detailed explanation of each individual dayMANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772.- Application depends on facts and circumstances of each case State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772Nrusingha Behera VS Brajaraj Das - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 59.- Avoid hyper-technical demands like explaining every hour or second MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408Trust Association of CBCNC VS H. R. R. Constructions Private Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1162.- No presumption of deliberate delay; often due to administrative reasons, with no benefit to the litigant MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772.- Prioritize substantial justice over technicalities, liberally condoning government or procedural delays Banwarilal & Gini Devi VS Mangilal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co. - 1993 0 Supreme(Raj) 502DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS I. S. NARULA - Consumer (1995).
In Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma, the Court noted the practical difficulties:
It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day-to-day delay. State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Punjab Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 255
Similarly, Collector (LA), Anantnag emphasized:
The approach of the Court should be pragmatic but not pedantic. Under those circumstances, the delay was rightly condoned. State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772
These rulings underscore that courts exercise discretion to avoid unjust outcomes from procedural hurdles.
The overriding goal is substantive justice. Non-deliberate delays, particularly from administrative lapses, warrant condonation. Courts have repeatedly favored flexibility, especially in public interest litigations or government appeals Banwarilal & Gini Devi VS Mangilal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co. - 1993 0 Supreme(Raj) 502DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS I. S. NARULA - Consumer (1995).
While the pragmatic trend dominates, not all cases align. Certain judgments stress cogent reasons and detailed explanations, particularly for inordinate delays or negligence.
For instance, in a case under Limitation Act Section 5 involving a suit for permanent injunction:
Limitation has got a specific purpose and object... Power of discretion is to be exercised cautiously. S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104
Another ruling held:
It is a settled principle of law that length of delay is immaterial, but cogent and convincing reason must be assigned... each and every day delay should be explained properly. D. Sundararajan VS G. Hemalatha - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2498
In consumer protection matters, leniency was denied for 796 days' delay due to lack of reasonable explanation:
No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions. Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Shri Jagbir Sharma
High Courts have been firm on 20-year delays:
For condonation of delay, delay of every day must be explained. But in this case, inordinate delay of twenty years have not been explained with sufficient cause. Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 360Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 365
And in land reform cases:
It is established law that every day delay is to be explained... The right which accrues to the other party by the expiration of the period of limitation should not be disturbed lightly. MUJEEB @ MAJNU VS COMMISSIONER DEVI PATAN MANDAL GONDA - 2009 Supreme(All) 3518
These illustrate exceptions: deliberate negligence, mala fide intent, or unexplained inordinate delays may invite stricter scrutiny.
Courts weigh:- Length vs. Quality of Explanation: Short delays may need less detail; long ones require strong justification S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104.- Bona Fides: Absence of negligence or inaction favors condonation S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104.- Prejudice to Opposite Party: Post-limitation rights accrue and shouldn't be lightly disturbed MUJEEB @ MAJNU VS COMMISSIONER DEVI PATAN MANDAL GONDA - 2009 Supreme(All) 3518.- Context: Government/administrative delays get more leeway State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772.
| Factor | Pragmatic View | Strict View ||--------|---------------|-------------|| Short Delay | Broad assessment sufficient MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408 | Cogent reasons needed D. Sundararajan VS G. Hemalatha - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2498 || Long/Inordinate Delay | Contextual if genuine Banwarilal & Gini Devi VS Mangilal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co. - 1993 0 Supreme(Raj) 502 | Every day explained Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 360 || Govt/Admin Cause | Liberal condonation State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Punjab Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 255 | No routine leniency Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Shri Jagbir Sharma |
To navigate this:- Prepare Holistically: Explain overall causes, emphasizing no mala fides State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772.- Highlight Context: Stress administrative hurdles or genuine reasons Banwarilal & Gini Devi VS Mangilal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co. - 1993 0 Supreme(Raj) 502.- Avoid Routine Petitions: Provide convincing affidavits; meritless filings risk costs Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Shri Jagbir Sharma.- Act Promptly: Even pragmatic courts reject unexplained lapses D. Sundararajan VS G. Hemalatha - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2498.- Seek Early Advice: File applications with supporting documents to demonstrate diligence.
The legal consensus leans towards interpreting every day’s delay must be explained pragmatically, prioritizing justice over technicalities MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408Nrusingha Behera VS Brajaraj Das - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 59. However, exceptions persist for negligent or inordinate delays, where detailed justifications are crucial Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 360MUJEEB @ MAJNU VS COMMISSIONER DEVI PATAN MANDAL GONDA - 2009 Supreme(All) 3518.
Key Takeaways:- Adopt a common-sense approach generally.- Focus on sufficient cause and bona fides.- Courts balance flexibility with fairness to prevent abuse.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, as each case turns on its facts. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References (select excerpts for brevity):1. MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408: Pedantic approach unwarranted.2. State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate VS Suchit Halwai - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1772: Rational, pragmatic application.3. Nrusingha Behera VS Brajaraj Das - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 59: Substantial justice prevails.4. Banwarilal & Gini Devi VS Mangilal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co. - 1993 0 Supreme(Raj) 502: Pragmatism for admin delays.5. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS I. S. NARULA - Consumer (1995): Liberal for govt appeals.6. Trust Association of CBCNC VS H. R. R. Constructions Private Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1162: Overall circumstances matter.7. S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104, D. Sundararajan VS G. Hemalatha - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2498, Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. VS Shri Jagbir Sharma, Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 360, Amar Singh VS Hanuman Singh - 2010 Supreme(Raj) 365, MUJEEB @ MAJNU VS COMMISSIONER DEVI PATAN MANDAL GONDA - 2009 Supreme(All) 3518: Nuances on strict requirements.
#CondonationOfDelay, #LimitationAct, #CourtDelays
"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. ... However, it is not necessary to explain each and every day delay but the doctrine requires to be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. The delay should not b....
Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of AnshulAggawal vs. ... T hus, th e re w as delay o f 378 days w hich needs to be explained by the A ppellant. H ow ever, th e y failed to show su fficie nt reason or cause fo r delay of each day as required under the law . Court has to BA examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained#HL_END....
In the case on hand, as held by the Tribunal, during this period of 1796 days, the records pertaining to the occurrence might have been destroyed and prejudice would be caused to the Railways if delay is condoned and moreover the appellant failed to explain day to day delay properly. ... He submits that except pleading ignorance of law the appellant has not explained the delay properly and ignorance of law cannot be an excuse “ignorantia juris non-excusat.” ... To the aforesaid princip....
"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. ... To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1. ... It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some laps....
Katji and Others, 1987 SC 1353, has held that: “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house’s delay. Every second’s delay ? ... Katji and Others, 1987 SC 1353, has held that: “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house’s delay. Every#H....
In other words, if the period of limitation is, say, 90-days, delay has to be explained only for the 90th day till the day of actual filing of the appeal or application, as the case may be. ... According to this decision, though the period covered between the last day of filing and the day of actual filing may be satisfactorily explained that would not be enough to condone delay because the appellant would nevertheless have to show why he waited unti....
Each and every case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. ... To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. ... When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the Applicant. 10. ... Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Long delay, if u....
“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. ... The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the lit....
Upon perusal of paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 reproduced above, absolutely, it does not show that the applicant has explained the delay properly. ... Also, there is every possibility that it is only after filing of the suit by the non-applicant on 19.09.2018 i.e. suit for damages and malicious prosecution, the department has filed the application for condonation of delay with ulterior motive. ... to permit the applicant to file additional affidavit to explain sufficient cause which ought to have been explained....
, (1996) 10 SCC 634 , had the occasion to observe that it would not be necessary for the State to provide a day-to-day explanation of delay while seeking condonation of the same. ... Further, a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government coun....
8. It is a settled principle of law that length of delay is immaterial, but cogent and convincing reason must be assigned. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the revision petitioner to convince the Court with sufficient and bonafide reasons for the delay. Further each and every day delay should be explained properly.
It is well settled principle of law that the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay should not be taken lightly. The observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Union of India Vs. Vijay Laxmi 2006 (1) CPC 61 (NC), cannot be given to by while dealing with the prayer made in the application for condonation of delay. Further, in case titled K.Thillainayakam (DR.) Vs. Adurai City Municipal Corporation reported in “IV (2008) CPJ 108 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :- It is well settled that each and every day dela....
Since the plaintiff had impleaded recorded khatedar as defendants, it was not necessary to implead the appellants as parties in view of the fact that their names were not recorded in any revenue record in respect of the disputed land. For condonation of delay, delay of every day must be explained. But in this case, inordinate delay of twenty years have not been explained with sufficient cause in reasonable and satisfactory manner. So Revenue Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality in not condoning the delay of twenty years and dismissing the appeal as time barred.
Since the plaintiff had impleaded recorded khatedar as defendants, it was not necessary to implead the appellants as parties in view of the fact that their names were not recorded in any revenue record in respect of the disputed land. So Revenue Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality in not condoning the delay of twenty years and dismissing the appeal as time barred. But in this case, inordinate delay of twenty years have not been explained with sufficient cause in reasonable and satisfactory manner. For condonation of delay, delay of every day must be explained.
After expiry of period of limitation, a right accrues to the other side. It is established law that every day delay is to be explained. This all shows that at each stage in the matter there is delay on the part of the petitioner. The relevant consideration is that the right which accrues to the other party by the expiration of the period of limitation should not be disturbed lightly.
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
