2022 (4) TMI 1348 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 2575 days in filing the second appeal - HELD THAT - Question may arise the purpose and object of the law of limitation as refusal of condonation of delay sometime causes denial of rights to the litigants. However, there is a definite purpose for prescription of period of limitation for institution of litigations/appeals. Different time limits are prescribed for different kinds of litigations. However, there is a strong reason for such prescription of limitation in various statutes. The litigants are always expected to be vigilant over their rights and liabilities, duties and responsibilities - the rights of citizen and corresponding duty towards the other fellow citizen are to be balanced in such a manner without causing any prejudice, which resulted in prescription of law of limitation. Exercise of right by a citizen cannot infringe the right of other fellow citizen. Rights and duties are corresponding and therefore, the law requires a limitation for institution of litigations/appeals. The principles of reasonableness would be adopted with reference to the nature of litigations to be instituted. Various time limits are prescribed for civil litigations, appeals and other varieties of litigations, considering various factors and by applying the doctrine of reasonableness. Thus, the law of limitation became substantive and to be followed scrupulously in all circumstances and on exceptional cases, the delay is to be condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable. Whenever the condone delay petitions are taken into consideration, there is a frequent representation from the parties that the delay is to be condoned by imposing heavy costs or otherwise? - HELD THAT - This Court is of the humble opinion that by imposing heavy costs, long delay cannot be condoned. In the event of condoning enormous delay by imposing costs, undoubtedly, the legal principles are not only compromised, but 'justice' is not done to the parties. The Courts are not supposed to compromise the legal principles under the guise of imposing heavy costs. Costs are imposed on certain exceptional circumstances, when the Courts form an opinion that lapses are minor and on account of such minor lapses, the parties should not suffer or their rights cannot be denied. However, costs cannot be in terms with reference to the number of days of delay. It is not an arithmetic principle, where long delay is to be condoned with heavy costs and meagre delay is to be condoned with meagre costs. Once the delay petition is filed, it is to be dealt with independently by considering the reasons furnished by the petitioner. If the reasons are candid and convincing, then the petitions are to be considered. However, condonation of delay cannot be allowed merely based on the merits in the main appeal. Of course, it is not a trite law to follow. However, in certain circumstances, the Courts can take a lenient view if the reasons are genuine. If the delay is about three months or upto five or six months, the Courts may take a lenient view, but not in respect of longer delay. This Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the second appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 2575 days in filing the second appeal, citing health issues as the reason for the delay. However, the court found discrepancies in the petitioner's claims. The court noted that the appeal papers could not be traced for years, and the only document available was a vakalatnama filed in 2015, not in 2008 as claimed by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of filing within the limitation period, stating that the law of limitation is substantive, and condonation of delay is an exception that must be exercised cautiously and uniformly. The court highlighted that discretion should not be used excessively to avoid defeating the purpose of limitation laws.

The court discussed the importance of genuineness in reasons for condoning delay, emphasizing that each case's facts and circumstances play a pivotal role. It highlighted the purpose of limitation laws to balance the rights of citizens and prevent prejudice. The court stressed that citizens must be vigilant over their rights and duties, and the law of limitation exists to ensure a balance between exercising rights and respecting others' rights.

Furthermore, the court explained that citizens cannot delay seeking redress indefinitely, as the right to defense and potential harassment of the other party must also be considered. The court reasoned that the law of limitation is based on the doctrine of reasonableness, with various time limits set for different types of litigations. It emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive and must be followed scrupulously, with delays only condoned in exceptional cases with genuine and acceptable reasons.

The court cautioned against condoning delays routinely or mechanically, highlighting that exceptions should be exercised exceptionally and discretion should be used discreetly to mitigate any injustice. It rejected the idea of condoning delays by imposing heavy costs, stating that justice should not be compromised under the guise of imposing financial penalties. The court emphasized that costs should not be tied to the number of days of delay and should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where minor lapses do not warrant denial of rights.

In conclusion, the court declined to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal, dismissing the civil miscellaneous petition and rejecting the appeal at the SR stage. No costs were awarded in this judgment.