2022 (2) TMI 1358 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of huge delay of 467 days - sufficient cause for delay present or not - HELD THAT - The learned trial Court specifically observed that in the absence of material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained. The trial Court has also observed that the Court feels that there are no merits in the application. Still the trial Court condoned the delay by observing that an opportunity of fair trial should be given to both the parties to put-forth their case on merits. The trial Court also observed that on allowing the application for condonation of delay no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff and therefore the delay can be condoned by compensating the plaintiff by way of heavy costs. The said order has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay thereafter the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that even after finding that in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in preferring application for setting aside ex-parte decree, condonation of delay, application of limitation laws.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in preferring an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The original defendants challenged the High Court's decision to set aside the trial court's order condoning a significant delay of 467 days. The trial court had acknowledged the lack of material evidence explaining the delay but still granted condonation to ensure a fair trial for both parties. However, the High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that condoning the delay without proper explanation would reward negligence. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's stance, citing legal precedents that highlight the strict application of limitation laws regardless of individual hardships. The Court emphasized that the purpose of limitation laws is to ensure timely resolution of disputes and that condonation should only be allowed with a valid and sufficient cause.

In supporting the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court referenced the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, emphasizing the importance of upholding limitation laws without exceptions based on equitable grounds. Additionally, the Court cited the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, which underlines the public policy foundation of limitation laws to prevent undue delays in seeking legal remedies. The Supreme Court's thorough analysis reaffirmed the principle that while limitation laws may seem harsh in specific cases, they must be strictly enforced to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and disposed of any pending applications, upholding the High Court's decision to not condone the delay in the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to limitation laws and the necessity of providing valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.