Limitation Laws Not Meant To Destroy Rights But To Prevent Delay, Every Legal Remedy Must Be Kept Alive Within Legislatively Fixed Period: J&K HC

The court added,

“The object underlying law of limitation is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae up sit finis litium” meaning that it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. A long passage of time alone is not enough to turn down the plea of an applicant and shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala-fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the litigant”

The court made these observations in a case stemming from a land dispute in Jammu when Teja Singh, predecessor of the appellants, allegedly cultivated 85 kanals of land as a protected tenant but was forcibly dispossessed in 1970. A legal challenge to his dispossession culminated in a 1994 eviction order against Abdul Aziz, the contesting respondent. While appellate authorities upheld the eviction, the J&K Special Tribunal reversed it in 2010.

Subsequently a single-judge bench reinstated the eviction in 2017, but a division bench overturned this decision in 2017 on procedural grounds. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, which in 2023 set aside the division bench ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration. Following this, Abdul Aziz withdrew his LPA and filed a review petition after a delay of more than 2,400 days. The single bench condoned the delay, prompting the present appeal.

Senior Advocate Sidharath Yadav, for the appellants, argued that condoning such an extraordinary delay undermines the doctrine of finality in litigation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he stressed that negligence or strategic delay should not be excused and contended that Aziz's explanation for the delay was neither credible nor justified.

Conversely, Advocate Dhiraj Chowdhary, representing Abdul Aziz, defended the delay as reasonable, citing Aziz's age, health issues, and reliance on incorrect legal advice. He submitted that Aziz had actively pursued legal remedies and should not be penalized for a procedural lapse.

Adjudicating on the matter Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani writing for the bench extensively examined the principles governing limitation laws and condonation of delay. Referring to Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987), he highlighted that litigants do not benefit from delay and that a justice-oriented approach must be prioritized. It also noted that the limitation period should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat meritorious claims.

Crucially, the bench distinguished between ordinary delay and inordinate delay caused by gross negligence and acknowledged that while a review petition is typically to be filed within 30 days, the peculiar circumstances of this case justified a more lenient approach.

The court observed,

“Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

While opining that it is the sufficiency of the cause assigned for condoning the delay which is more material than the length of the delay having occasioned in filing the cause the court however clarified that the expression “sufficient cause” as occurring in Seciton 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large.

Observing that Aziz had not been inactive or negligent the court pointed that he had pursued the case through an intra-court appeal and then before the Supreme Court.

“.. Thus, under these circumstances, there appears a reason to believe that the contesting respondent/review petitioner bonafidly conceived to prefer the review petition. He, as such, is supposed to have a sufficient cause to prefer the review petition, notwithstanding the length of the time”, the court maintained.

Furthermore, the court also noted that the review petition did not challenge the substantive findings but sought reconsideration in light of new legal perspectives. Accordingly, it found no reason to interfere with the single bench's order condoning the delay.

“In the backdrop of the aforementioned discussion, we in the facts and circumstances of this case find no illegality or perversity with the order impugned”, the court concluded and discussed the appeal.

Case Title: Rajinder Singh Vs Abdul Aziz

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment