Condonation of delay

On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the limitation law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.

(Bhag Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353, Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd A.I.R. 1962 SC 361, Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors.4, A.I.R. 1935 PC 85 Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50, Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363, State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927, Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition (2013) 14 SCC 81 Officer, Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.(2014) 14 SCC 127 Imrat Lal & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 133 followed)