Friday, March 6, 2026
Latest:
2024April 2024LatestLegalSupreme Court

Delay – Condonation of Gross delay of 12 years and 158 days  – Question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration – Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity

legaldeli

On 9.3.1951, the bungalow No.15A at Pune Cantonment was leased by the respondent to the appellants.

In 1981, the respondent filed civil suit for possession of the property and arrears of rent.   On 2.5.1987, the suit was decreed.  Civil appeal of the appellants was dismissed in 1992.   This was challenged in W.P.No.2307 of 1993 in the High Court of Bombay. On 26.11.2013, the respondent filed execution petition and on 18.3.2016 the appellants were served with the notice.   However, the writ petition was dismissed on 10.10.2006 for non-prosecution.

HELD that 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 lapse of the prescribed time, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be cuased to either side by the delay being condoned.  Almost 43 years of litigation have lapsed.   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 delay of 12 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole the legal proceedings.  The Court should not keep the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity.  Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The length of delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration.  The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration.  The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation for condonation of delay.  

Judgment dated 3.4.2024 in Civil Appeal No.4672 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21096 of 2019) of Union of India and another Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR

You May Also Like

Bombay HC Restores Elected Trustees – Quashes Administrator Order in Shani Shingnapur Trust

legaldeli

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Powers to condone delay

legaldeli

Arbitral Award – Claim barred by limitation – Sec.14(1) of the Limitation Act  Exclusion of period of earlier proceedings – Patent illegality & Violation of Public Policy- Interference under Section 34 of AA –

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“NDA”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: NDA does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. NDA assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: NDA does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. NDA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about NDA, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between NDA and you.

I Agree