Merits of the case not required to be considered in condoning the delay: Top Court enumerates principles governing law of limitation
Justices Bela M. Trivedi & Pankaj Mithal [08-04-2024]

Read Order: PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) [SC- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31248 OF 2018]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 9, 2024: The Supreme Court has upheld an order refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing an appeal pertaining to a land acquisition case after noting that the claimants were negligent and there was apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter.

The present case was one pertaining to acquisition of some land in village Gandluru, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in 1989 for Telugu Ganga Project. Not satisfied by the compensation offered under the award, 16 claimants preferred a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Out of the 16 claimants in the above reference, claimants No. 1, 3 and 11 died during the pendency of the reference before the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge. No steps were taken to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of the above deceased persons. The said reference was dismissed on merits along with some other references upholding the award of the collector.

After the lapse of more than 5/6 years, an appeal was proposed to be filed in the High Court Under Section 54 challenging the dismissal of the reference. Out of the 16 claimants, 15 of them impliedly accepted the judgment and order of the reference court and it was only the heirs and legal representatives of claimant No. 11, who felt aggrieved and proposed to file the appeal.

The above appealwas preferred with the delay of 5659 days. Accordingly, an application supported by an affidavit of the surviving daughter of the deceased claimant No. 11 was filed for condoning the delay. It was submitted by her that since she was living in her matrimonial house, she had no knowledge of the above reference. It was only on 28.05.2015 when one of the grandsons of the said daughter of the deceased claimant visited the office of the L.A.O. for the purpose of obtaining submersion certificate to secure a job that he came to know that there was a reference which was dismissed on 24.09.1999, whereupon the proposed appeal was immediately filed along with an application to condone the delay in its filing.

The Special Leave Petition, before the Apex Court, had been filed challenging the judgment of the High Court dismissing the application of the petitioners herein for condoning the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal.

The main issue, before the Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.

“The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicaeut sit finislitium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation”, the Bench said while noting that the appeal which is preferred after the expiry of the limitation is liable to be dismissed. Section 3 of the Limitation Act is peremptory and had to be given effect to even though no objection regarding limitation is taken by the other side or referred to in the pleadings. In other words, it casts an obligation upon the court to dismiss an appeal which is presented beyond limitation. This is the general law of limitation.

It was further observed that the courts are conferred with discretionary powers to admit an appeal even after the expiry of the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant is able to establish ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing it within time. The said power to condone the delay or to admit the appeal preferred after the expiry of time is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is shown based upon host of other factors such as negligence, failure to exercise due diligence etc.

The Bench, thus, culled out the following principles-

• Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
• A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
• The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally
• In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
• Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
• Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
• Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
• Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.

The Bench noted that the High Court, in the facts of this case, had not found it fit to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of condoning the delay. The Bench found no instance or occasion to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the High Court as the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing the proposed appeal. Secondly, most of the claimants had accepted the decision of the reference court. The Bench noted that in the event the petitioners had not been substituted and made party to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did. Thus, there was apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter.

“Accordingly, in our opinion, High Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal”, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.