Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party; but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no powers to extend prescribed periods of limitation on grounds of equity and justice.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Kailasam P challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rejecting his application to condone delay in filing an appeal against the Sale of his property by the bank.

The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellant on the grounds that it had no power to condone the delay. Following this the petitioner filed an application challenging the same which came to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach DRAT.

The petitioner then filed an appeal on 24.05.2023, an application was also moved seeking condonation of delay. However, the DRAT vide order dated 01.04.2024 dismissed the delay application and as a consequence appeal also came to be negatived.

The appellants contended that the period of limitation of 45 days prescribed u/s.17(1) of SARFAESI 2002 is only directory in nature and therefore the DRT could not have rejected the application seeking condonation of delay beyond 45 days.

The banks opposed the plea submitting that the prescribed period of limitation is 45 days u/s.17 of the Act, which is mandatory, DRT not being a conventional court has no inherent power to condone any delay, more particularly when Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable.

Findings:

Referring to Section 17 (1) of the Act, the bench said “No provision is made by the Parliament for condonation of delay in approaching the DRT against orders of the kind, whatever be the cause thereof and howsoever justifiable it may sound. Unless power to condone delay is legislatively granted expressly or by inference, a Tribunal of the kind cannot condone delay.”

Court added that “Tribunals unlike conventional courts do not have inherent power. Added, a Tribunal is not a court and therefore 1963 (Limitation) Act is not applicable, subject to all just exceptions. It is the policy of Parliament that one who wants to have redressal has to knock at the doors of DRT within 45 days and thereafter those doors should permanently stand closed.”

The bench added that law does not come to the aid of those who are "sleepy & tardy.”

Further, it said “If the Parliament intended that DRT should have power to condone delay, it would have enacted a provision like Sec.5 of the 1963 Act in Sec.17 of 2002 Act. However, consciously it has chosen not to do it. It is not an omission by inadvertence, to say the least. It is a policy decision taken in the accumulated experience and the lessons drawn from it.”

Dismissing the petition it concluded, “True it is that any welfare State like ours is bound in good faith to furnish its citizens all needful legal remedy however it is not bound to keep its Courts and Tribunals open ad infinitum. If an aggrieved person neglects or refuses to apply for redress within the prescribed period of limitation, his claim is lost in the lapse of time.”

Case Title: Kailasam P AND The Karnataka Bank Ltd & Others

Case No: WP 11273 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Click Here To Read/Download Order