“Delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity” and length of delay is a relevant matter while considering the plea for condonation of delay: Supreme Court
While hearing the Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR case on April 03, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that the length of the delay is a relevant matter while considering the plea for condonation of delay. It also held that the court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. The bench consisting of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing an appeal against the Bombay High Court order which declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing an application for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order delivered on October 10, 2006. The Bombay HC declined to condone the delay by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the proceedings, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian appeared for the appellants whereas Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari represented the respondent.
In this case, the suit property situated at Staveley Road, Pune was leased by the respondent in favor of the appellants on March 09, 1951. However, there was a breach of the terms of the lease deed by the appellant because of which the respondent instituted a civil suit before the Court of the Additional Small Causes Judge for the recovery of the possession of the suit property & arrears towards the rent. The suit came to be allowed and the final decree came to be passed. The matter was further mentioned before the court of the Additional District Judge and the appeal was further dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dismissing the appeal came to be challenged by the appellants herein by filing the Petition before the High Court. The Bombay HC dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Further, the matter was mentioned before the top court.
While hearing the matter, the SC bench observed, “Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations.” If added, “While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.” The bench mentioned that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration.
After hearing the contentions, the SC held that the HC committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It further illustrated that “delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.” While dismissing the appeal, the bench reiterated that the appellants failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter, and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this particular case.
