Uncondonable Delay Cannot Be Condoned In A Routine Manner: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that the Law of Limitation is substantive and that the litigations and appeals are to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes. Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a petition filed under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal. "Rule...
The Madras High Court has held that the Law of Limitation is substantive and that the litigations and appeals are to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes.
Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a petition filed under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal.
"Rule is to follow limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. Exceptions are to be exercised discreetly, if the reasons furnished are genuine and acceptable. The Courts are vested with the power of discretion to condone the delay, that does not mean that enormous delay in instituting the suit or appeal is to be condoned mechanically. Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of discretion for the purpose of condoning the delay."
The court also held that the power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. And that the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly so as to avoid any prejudice to either of the parties.
The court held that condonation of delay is based upon the facts, circumstances, and the genuinity of the reasons of each case. Condonation of delay might cause a denial of rights to the litigants. But, there is a strong reason for prescribing such limitations. The litigants are always expected to be vigilant over their rights and liabilities, duties and responsibilities. The court further stated that if every person is allowed to exercise their right according to their whims and fancies, rights of other individuals may be prejudiced. Thus, the right of individuals and their duty to other citizens must be balanced.
"The principles of reasonableness would be adopted with reference to the nature of litigations to be instituted. Various time limits are prescribed for civil litigations, appeals and other varieties of litigations, considering various factors and by applying the doctrine of reasonableness. Thus, the law of limitation became substantive and to be followed scrupulously in all circumstances and on exceptional cases, the delay is to be condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable."
The court further added that condoning delay by imposing heavy costs compromises the legal principles and does not do justice to the parties.
In the present case, the petitioner stated that she is a senior citizen and was suffering from ailments because of which she could not come over to Madurai and make arrangements for filing appeal. Her counsel further submitted that the appeal was presented to the court in 2008 but the appeal papers could not be traced out in the office of the court.
The court however stated that though the counsel claims that the papers were presented in 2008 there was no evidence to support this statement. Moreover, the Vakalat was filed in 2015.
The court stated that if the delay is about three months or up to five or six months, the courts may take a lenient view, but in respect of longer delay. The court was thus not inclined to condone the delay of 2575 days and dismissed the application.
Case Title: T.Lakshmi v. M.Vasantha and Ors
Case No: C.M.P (MD) No. 10954 of 2021 in S.A(MD) SR No. 46901 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 134