A Party May Not Be Entitled To Condonation Of Delay Even After Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court observed that a party may not be entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right even after sufficient cause has been shown.
The Court dismissed a Review Petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the the power of attorney holder was undergoing continuous treatment for asthma. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation must be strictly enforced when mandated by the statute. The Courts cannot extend the limitation period based on equitable grounds alone.
The Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “It is important to note that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party may not be entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. When sufficient cause is established the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone”.
Advocate C.K. Jayakumar appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate R. Muraleekrishnan appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioners applied for a certified copy of the judgment that was issued on August 25, 2014. The Registry required the Petitioners to surrender it for some rectification. The Petitioners surrendered the certified copy and obtained the rectified judgment only after three months. The power of attorney holder of the Petitioners was a chronic asthma patient and was undergoing continuous treatment for asthma. The reason for the delay in filing the review petitions was severe asthmatic problems and related diseases to the power of attorney holder from 2014 onwards. The Petitions were filed on May 31, 2015. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay of 288 days.
The Court noted that when determining whether to condone a delay in filing, specific circumstances of each case must be considered. The concept of "sufficient cause" for condonation is not rigid and may vary depending on the nature of the claim. While courts should generally adopt a liberal approach, they must also balance the rights of both parties involved. In cases where one party exhibits gross negligence, the other party may be prevented from seeking discretionary relief.
“The expression “sufficient cause” contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to yield different results depending upon the circumstances of the case. The criteria to be applied in condoning the delay in different claims may be different… When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence of the other, the Court shall refrain from exercising the discretionary relief. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the Statute mandates so. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds”, the Bench noted.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the law of limitation must be strictly enforced when the statute mandates it. The Courts cannot extend the limitation period based on equitable grounds alone.
The Bench observed, “The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale”.
The Court observed that the Petitioner failed to meet the requirements for condoning the delay. They provided no satisfactory explanation for the 288-day delay, and their claim of asthmatic complaints was not supported by any evidence. Additionally, the litigation commenced in 2004, and the Petitioners were well aware of the issues involved and the prescribed limitation period.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sathy M.P. v Sarasa (2023:KER:69507)
