Liberal Approach Be Adopted In Condoning Delay When Case's Merits Need Examination: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that although a delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the case's merit cannot be discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation. The Court further emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. “There can be...
The Supreme Court recently observed that although a delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the case's merit cannot be discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation.
The Court further emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice.
“There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard where the Appellant claimed ownership rights over the suit property/land, which was classified as grazing land under the ownership of the MP Government and was allocated for the public purpose.
After a series of litigation, the matter reached the High Court, where the Respondent-State government filed a belated second appeal along with a delay condonation application praying to condone a delay of 1537 days against the dismissal of the review petition by the trial court declaring the appellant as the rightful owner of the land.
The High Court allowed the second appeal despite being filed belatedly noting that the suit property was a government property being allocated for the public purpose. The High Court reasoned that the second appeal could not be dismissed just because it was filed belatedly when its merits needed to be examined.
Challenging the High Court's ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Upholding the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah stated that while delays should ideally not be excused without sufficient reason, the technical ground of limitation should not be used to undermine the merits of a case. When the merits require examination, substantial justice should not be compromised solely due to delay caused in preferring an appeal or filing a case.
In this regard, reference was drawn to several precedents such as Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra (1974) which establishes that substantial justice is of paramount consideration and the case cannot be dismissed solely on limitation grounds when the merits of the case require consideration. Also, the Court referenced the recent case of Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023) where the Court advocated for taking a liberal approach regarding delays in appeals filed by the State.
Applying the law to the case facts, the Court noted that the dispute involves government land, which is in the State's possession and has been allocated for public purposes. This factor weighed in favor of allowing the Second Appeal to be heard on merits.
“Pausing for a moment, it is necessary to indicate that in the present case, the dispute over title of a land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State. Moreover, when the land in question was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in the possession of the State, the claim of the State that it is government land cannot be summarily discarded. We find, upon a perusal of the record, that the appellant had, in fact, filed an execution case for taking over possession of the land, which would demonstrate clearly the admitted position that he was not in possession thereof.”, the court observed.
“in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which, at the cost of repetition relate to land claimed by the State as government land and in its possession, persuade us to not interfere with the Impugned Order.”, the court added.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: INDER SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Kshitiz Singh, Adv.
