Not Being Aware Of Legal Remedy Not Ground To Condone Delay: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"It is the duty of all Courts of justice, to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases do not make bad law,” quoted the Punjab & Haryana High Court while refusing to allow plea for condonation of delay filed asserting lack of proper legal advice.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A mere bald assertion of not having been furnished with proper legal advice cannot constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay. Such a plea, unsupported by cogent evidence or substantial justification, fails to meet the threshold of “sufficient cause” as envisaged under the law."

The Court added that permitting condonation on such "tenuous grounds" would render the statutory framework governing limitation redundant, thereby undermining its fundamental objective of ensuring finality and discouraging undue protraction of litigation. 

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed for condoning a delay of 213 days in filing  a revision challenging the maintenance order.

Counsel appearing for the applicant, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 213 days, argued that the applicant was not aware about the remedy available to her to file the revision petition for enhancing the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the sole ground for condonation of delay, is that the delay occurred due to the petitioner not having received appropriate legal advice as to the availability of remedy in the form of revision.

Justice Goel highlighted that the Limitation Act, 1963 is premised on the principle that litigants must exercise diligence and vigilance in the pursuit of their legal remedies.

"To relax this standard without compelling reasons would open the floodgates for frivolous delays, defeating the legislative intent of maintaining judicial discipline and efficiency. While this stance may appear stringent in a country like ours, where a lack of awareness regarding legal rights remains prevalent among the general populace, it reflects the legislative intent behind the law," said the Court.

The Limitation Act, 1963 is enacted to serve the collective good, ensuring timely resolution of disputes and fostering legal certainty. It cannot be diluted or relaxed for individual hardships, as doing so would compromise the uniformity and predictability essential for the legal system, added the judge.

In the present case, the Court opined that no worthwhile explanation has been given for the same. "No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to condone the delay of 213 days in filing the accompanying revision petition."

Stating that "the delay is both inordinate and inexplicable", the Court rejected the plea.

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

XXXX v. XXXX  [CRM-39868-2017 in/and CRR(F)-495-2017]