Examine 'Cause Of Delay' & Not 'Length Of Delay'; Condone Delay If There's Sufficient Cause : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a delay in filing an application should be condoned if it has been sufficiently explained, regardless of the length of the delay.

“It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.”, the court said.

Setting aside the order of the High Court which had refused to condone the delay of 425 days being sufficiently explained by the litigant, the bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that withdrawal of the application by the litigant's advocate without informing the litigant would be a sufficient cause for the delay caused in preferring an application.

“If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay.”, the court said observed.

In the instant case, the appellant's advocate had withdrawn the application preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) without intimating the appellant. The appellant came to know about such withdrawal only after a year. Thereafter, he sought to prefer an application along with an application seeking condonation of delay, however the application was rejected by the CAT.

Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the rejection of condonation of delay application by the CAT. However, the Writ petition also came to be rejected by the High Court.

Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Finding the view taken by the High Court as erroneous and untenable, the Supreme Court underscored that even if the length of the delay is large, it should be condoned if there is sufficient explanation.

Since the appellant had explained the sufficient cause of delay not being attributed to him, therefore the Court held that the delay of 425 days in filing a fresh original application before the CAT had been succinctly explained by the appellant before the Tribunal.

“Applying the aforesaid principles which we are in complete agreement to the facts on hand and test the same it would not detain us for too long to set aside the impugned orders, in as much as the delay of 425 days in filing fresh O.A. No.2066 of 2020 has been succinctly explained by the appellant before the Tribunal, namely, it has been contended that there was no intimation of withdrawal of the earlier OA by his counsel and the order of withdrawal dated 10.08.2018 does not reflect that such withdrawal was based on any memo duly signed by the appellant.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the order of the High Court as well as the tribunal was set aside.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR

Case Details: MOOL CHANDRA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8435 - 8436 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 552

Click here to read/download the judgment