Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
Supreme Court: Delay Should Not Be Condoned Merely As An Act Of Generosity
|The Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Order by the Madras High Court, which allowed the Revision preferred by the Appellant.
The Supreme Court observed that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity.
The Court set aside the Impugned Order by the Madras High Court, which allowed the Revision preferred by the Appellant against the decision of the Trial Court, which had allowed the Application by the Respondents for condonation of delay. The Court held that the repetition of grounds in applications for condonation of delay, even if filed under different provisions of the law but already scrutinised and held untenable, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “This Court is of the considered view that such a repetition of grounds already scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Although the applications for condonation of delay are filed under different provisions of the law but the said provisions provide for concurrent remedies through different mechanisms and if the application filed under one provision has already been dismissed by a court of competent jurisdiction, by applying its judicial mind and held that the reasons for delay were not sufficient, a subsequent application filed under different provision, reiterating the same contentions or grounds of delay, cannot be entertained.”
AOR MP Parthiban represented the Appellant, while AOR A Velan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
A sale agreement was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. The agreement pertained to a suit property. Following the failure of the Respondent to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement, the Appellant preferred a civil suit before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance.
The Respondents preferred two separate applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC along with applications for condonation of delay of 712 and 467 days respectively, and the Trial Court allowed both the applications, setting aside ex-parte decree Order and condoned the delay.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”
The Bench held, “Therefore, in the case at hand, once it has been established that the reasons provided for condoning the delay in the application filed are not sufficient, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel of Respondents regarding Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”
"Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet," the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 672)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR M.P. Parthiban; Advocates C. Paramasivam, Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam and Alagiri K
Respondent: AOR R. A Velan; Advocate Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh and Nilay Rai