Limitation Act | Justice-Oriented Approach Though Liberal, Cannot Be Used To Defeat Substantial Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment held that though the justice-oriented approach in dealing with condonation of delay is liberal, it cannot be used to defeat the provisions of substantial law.The judgment, delivered by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, revolves around the interplay between Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act.Justice Dua reiterated the principle put forward by...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment held that though the justice-oriented approach in dealing with condonation of delay is liberal, it cannot be used to defeat the provisions of substantial law.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, revolves around the interplay between Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act.
Justice Dua reiterated the principle put forward by the Apex Court that “in order to advance substantial justice, though liberal, justice-oriented approach and cause of substantial justice is required to be kept in mind, however, the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense, wherein Section 5 has to be construed liberally.”
The case arose when the respondent's first appeal, filed against the dismissal of her civil suit by the Trial Court, was delayed by 170 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The respondent sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing her medical condition as the reason for the delay.
The First Appellate Court had accepted her explanation and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed. This decision was subsequently challenged by the petitioner in the High Court.
In its reasoning, the High Court considered the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA), which outlines the distinction between the strict construction of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the liberal interpretation of Section 5.
The Supreme Court has held that while courts must exercise discretion under Section 5 to advance substantial justice, this cannot be done at the expense of the strict application of limitation laws under Section 3.
In this context, the High Court observed that the respondent had provided sufficient and credible reasons for the delay, supported by medical evidence, which was not disputed by the petitioner. The court noted that the First Appellate Court was the last court of facts available to the respondent and that the justice-oriented approach was appropriate given the specific circumstances of the case.
The High Court concluded that the First Appellate Court had exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and that no material irregularity or illegality was evident in its decision to condone the delay.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that while the law of limitation must be strictly construed, a liberal and justice-oriented approach can validate the condonation of delays when justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: Harnam Singh. Versus Champa Devi.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 48