Courts Must Balance Citizen's Rights & Adherence To Timelines, Delay Must Not Be Exploited: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has underscored the necessity of distinguishing between genuine explanations for delays and inordinate, unexplained delays in judicial matters.
The Court held that while it has a duty to protect citizens' rights, it must remain vigilant against allowing parties to misuse the system by approaching courts at their convenience without sufficient cause.
“The conduct of the party, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by taking normal care and caution are the other relevant factors those need to be taken into consideration in granting the application for condonation of delay. As a constitutional authority, this court has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens, but simultaneously it has to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not”, observed Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi.
These observations came in a case arising from a landlord-tenant dispute between Seema Gupta (respondent) and Shabnam Soodan (appellant). The respondent, along with her husband, owned a triple-story house in Gandhinagar, Jammu, rented out to the appellant in 2020 under a tenancy agreement. The appellant allegedly defaulted on rent payments, utility bills, and violated terms of the tenancy.
Despite serving a legal notice and receiving the appellant's assurance to vacate, the respondent had to file a civil suit in November 2021 seeking eviction, arrears recovery, and compensation. The appellant initially contested the suit but failed to maintain appearances, leading to an ex-parte judgment and decree in March, 2023, favoring the respondent.
Subsequently, the appellant sought to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the First Additional District Judge, Jammu, dismissed these applications in November 2023, citing lack of bona fide reasons for the delay.
Aggrieved, the appellant argued that her absence was due to personal difficulties, including caring for her ailing father-in-law, who later passed away. She also blamed her previous counsel for negligence and claimed she was unaware of the ex-parte proceedings. Her counsel further relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a liberal approach in condoning delays, provided sufficient cause is shown.
The respondent countered, stating that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence of her claims and deliberately shifted blame onto her counsel. They argued the delay was unjustified and pointed to the appellant's consistent failure to honor court obligations, despite engaging a new counsel in January 2023.
After considering the rival contentions Justice Kazmi meticulously analyzed the case, emphasizing that while courts adopt a liberal approach to condonation of delays, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and only when supported by bona fide reasons.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, the court reiterated that that the law of limitation serves public policy by ensuring the timely resolution of disputes and courts are obligated to reject appeals filed beyond limitation without sufficient cause.
The Court observed that the appellant's actions demonstrated negligence, deliberate inaction, and lack of bona fides. Despite having engaged new counsel in January 2023, she failed to take timely steps until after receiving notice in an execution petition in July 2023. Additionally, the appellant's claims about her father-in-law's illness and hospital records lacked corroborating evidence, amounting to an abuse of judicial process.
“The appellant initiated steps for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 and application for condonation of delay, after the notice was issued upon her in the execution petition filed by the respondent on 11.07.2023, which indicates that she was following the proceedings filed by the respondent”, the court remarked.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded that the appellant had resorted to dilatory tactics and failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Case Title: Shabnam Soodan Vs Seema Gupta
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 335