Public Interest Is Better Served By Timely Governmental Action: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses State’s 992 Days Delay Condonation Application

The Punjab and High Court was considering an application filed by the applicant-State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 992 days in filing the appeal.

The Single Bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma held, “It goes without saying that the law of limitation, being founded upon public policy, is anchored in the well-recognized maxim ‘reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ that it is in the larger public interest that there should be an end to litigation. The object is to ensure finality in legal proceedings, and public interest is undoubtedly better served by timely governmental action than by condoning repeated lapses on account of avoidable delays.”

“Even granting the applicant-State every latitude, the explanation tendered neither discloses “sufficient cause” nor satisfactorily accounts for the entirety of the delay, as mandated by the aforesaid precedents. Faced with such an extraordinary delay, mere vague assertions or generalized difficulties fall far short of meeting the statutory threshold for condonation”, it added.

Additional Advocate General Animesh Sharma represented the State.

Reasoning

The Bench at the outset reiterated that delay is not to be condoned as a matter of generosity or benevolence, and the pursuit of substantial justice cannot come at the cost of prejudice to the opposite party. “It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but has substantive value, being founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 seeks to ensure that litigants approach the Court within a reasonable period and do not sleep over their rights. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the Court to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown, such discretion is neither automatic nor to be exercised as a matter of course.”

The Bench also highlighted that the Apex Court, while strongly deprecating the State and its agencies for their bureaucratic lethargy and red-tapism leading to inordinate delay in filing appeals without due regard to the provisions of the Limitation Act, has repeatedly held that the Courts ought not to readily accept such explanations as constituting “sufficient cause.” “The law requires that the Courts exercise circumspection in such matters, apply their judicial mind carefully, and be slow in condoning delay when the reasons offered reflect bureaucratic apathy. Only in exceptional circumstances, where the explanation is found to be genuine, reflective of reasonable diligence and promptitude, and free from gross negligence, deliberate inaction, want of bona fides, or casual indifference, can such delay be condoned”, it added.

Further, the Bench reaffirmed that while the Courts lean in favour of advancing substantial justice, they cannot do so by defeating the law of limitation or by causing serious prejudice to the opposite party. “The law of limitation, being founded on public policy, admits of no exception in favour of repeated bureaucratic lapses or casual indifference. “As the applicant–State has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the application is devoid of merit”, it held.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Cause Title: The Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab v. Varinder Kumar Jain (Neutral Citation:2025:PHHC:136537)

Click here to read/download Order