Courts To Avoid Pedantic Approach In Application For Supplementing Grounds For Delay Condonation, Unless They Determine Parties' Rights: J&K High Court

Justice Puneet Gupta emphasised that the court should refrain from overly strict or pedantic scrutiny when parties seek to introduce supplementary pleadings in applications that do not ultimately determine the parties' rights in the ongoing suit. 

“The pedantic approach need not be applied by the court as far as supplementing the original pleadings with the one which the party intends to incorporate in the application when the same is not to finally determine the rights of the party to the suit on the outcome of the application.”

The case revolved around a civil suit where an application for interim relief had been allowed by the lower court. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, along with an application for condonation of delay. They further sought leave to include additional grounds in the condonation application.

The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the original suit, contested the delay condonation application. The appellate court, in its impugned order, dismissed the application for condonation of delay, primarily citing that the certified copy of the initial order had been filed well after the 30-day limitation period specified by the Limitation Act, which had been in effect since October 2019.

The petitioners approached the High Court aggrieved by the appellate court's dismissal.

Dealing with the primary contention of the petitioners that they had mistakenly believed the limitation period for filing the appeal was 90 days, not 30 days, as per the current law, the court maintained that this contention needed to be supported by evidence to determine if the error was genuinely made in good faith.

“As the petitioners claim to be misled by the practice qua the time period for filing the First Miscellaneous Appeal, the same can be determined only on the basis of evidence that comes on record The petitioners have to make out that the error in application of period of limitation was a bonafide one. The application filed for condonation of delay could be brought to its logical end only after the petitioners are given opportunity to prove their contention in the application.”

Commenting on the argument of respondent that the application filed for supplementing the grounds as mentioned in the application qua the application originally filed for condonation of delay could not be entertained being an afterthought and, therefore, cannot be looked into for the purposes of determining the application filed for condonation of delay, the court said opined that the application to supplement the grounds for delay condonation should not be dismissed as an afterthought, as long as it does not affect the final determination of the party's rights in the suit.

The court further invoked the explanation to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for an extension of the prescribed period if the applicant can demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for the delay.

Based on the said observations the bench allowed the petition and the order impugned dated 22.05.2023 passed by the court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srinagar was set aside. The appellate court was further directed to grant the opportunity to the petitioners to prove their contention raised in the application and the application shall be decided after taking into consideration the evidence and the arguments that may be advanced by both sides.

Case Title: SHAH MASOOD AHMAD AND ANR vs. SHAH SHABIR AHMAD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 239

Counsel For Parties: Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, Advocate with Mr. Manan, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Farhat Zia, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment