Condonation of delay cannot be arbitrary, there should be reasons to support such condonation: Supreme Court of India
In the application seeking condonation of delay, it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice M. R. SHAH &amp; Hon’ble Justice B. V. NAGARATHNA in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi &amp; Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.7696 OF 2021]. 
The facts that gave rise to the present appeal were that the appellant herein filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The original defendants applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on 10.03.2017. That after a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents herein preferred the Second Appeal before the High Court. Application to condone the delay was also filed. By the impugned order, the High Court has condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. Aggrieved the appellant had preferred the present appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed after perusing the impugned order that “it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out.” Thereafter going through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year   2021. 

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 wherein it was held while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory, or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It was further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It was further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs.   Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.   It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, and the impugned order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal was quashed and set aside. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts that gave rise to the present appeal were that the appellant herein filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The original defendants applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on 10.03.2017. That after a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents herein preferred the Second Appeal before the High Court. Application to condone the delay was also filed. By the impugned order, the High Court has condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. Aggrieved the appellant had preferred the present appeal. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed after perusing the impugned order that “it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out.” Thereafter going through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year   2021. 

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 wherein it was held while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory, or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It was further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It was further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs.   Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.   It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, and the impugned order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal was quashed and set aside. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed after perusing the impugned order that “it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out.” Thereafter going through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year   2021.  
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 wherein it was held while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory, or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It was further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It was further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs.   Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.   It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, and the impugned order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal was quashed and set aside. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 wherein it was held while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory, or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It was further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It was further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. 
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs.   Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.   It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, and the impugned order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal was quashed and set aside. However, there was no order as to cost.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs.   Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.   It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, and the impugned order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal was quashed and set aside. However, there was no order as to cost.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra No.331 of 2021 by which the High Court has condoned a appellant ­ original plaintiff respondent before the High by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017. That the original defendants respondents herein applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on the respondents herein original defendants preferred the the delay was also filed being I.A. No.1 of 2021. By the 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal which is the 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the present case High Court has committed a grave error in explaining the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the delay of 1011 days the High Court has also not observed in the application for condonation of delay there is no explanation whatsoever explaining the delay for the period 3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 2 SCR 762 P.K Patil Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project 2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. 14 SCC 81 it is prayed to 4. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava learned counsel appearing on 4.1 It is submitted that when the High Court has exercised interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under 4.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on the High Court if the delay is condoned in that case the appeal will be considered and decided on merits and submitted that in order to enable the respondents appellants before the High Court to submit the case on 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 6. At the outset it is noted that by the impugned order the High the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein “In these circumstances when there are certain questions which require a debate in the second appeal it without inviting a decision on merits. lf the delay is give an opportunity to the parties to canvass their respective case. Since this question being of procedure assigned by the petitioner the delay in presenting this that valuable rights are accrued to her on account of payment of costs of Rs.2 000 ­ to the learned counsel for the respondent on or has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the herein nor it suffers from want of due diligence. However from the averments in the application for condonation of delay we are of the opinion that it was a case of a gross respondents herein appellants before the High Court in 6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 7. At this stage a few decisions of this Court on delay in filing 7.1 In the case of Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal it is In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the parties. In other words when the period of limitation heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269 "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the 7.2 In the case of P.K. Ramachandranwhile refusing to condone the delay of 565 days it is observed that in the absence of reasonable satisfactory or even appropriate and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay the court 7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patilit is observed as “The laws of limitation are founded on public policy Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” that is the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the 7.4 In the case of Basawaraj it is observed and held by exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression further observed that even though limitation may harshly for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay 7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patilit is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein original defendants. Impugned order In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside Consequently Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed on the