Source – Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of UP State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao v. Gurmeet Singh, held that the application for condonation of delay must be dealt with liberally otherwise it will cause obstruction of justice.

What is the Background of the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao v. Gurmeet Singh Case?

• The Present appeals have been preferred in the HC of Allahabad against the order dated 19^th July 2023 passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal thereby rejecting the appeals preferred by the appellants only on the grounds of delay.
• It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the respondent had preferred complaints before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority which were allowed on various dates.
• Against the said orders, the appellant had preferred an appeal.
• There were delays in filing of the appeal by a period of 103, 242, 62, 124 days respectively and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also preferred.
• The Appellant further contended that the delay ought to have been condoned as the reasons were duly explained and were beyond the control of the appellant.
• The HC noted that the appellant had sufficiently explained the delay and so the appeals were allowed and remanded back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The HC observed that any order passed either allowing the application for condonation of delay or rejecting the same without recording a finding sufficiently would be arbitrary and liable to be interfered by the superior courts.
• The HC further held that a court or tribunal considering the application for condonation of delay must consider the facts asserted in support of the application. Findings must be recorded on whether the facts detailed are sufficient for condoning the delay or otherwise.

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the concept of condonation of delay.
  • The condonation of delay means the extension of prescribed time in certain cases subject to sufficient cause.
  • The concept of condoning a delay is primarily preferred to the applications and appeal and does not cover the suits.
• Section 5 states that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
• Explanation to Section 5 states that the fact that when the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the HC in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Raheem Shah & Anr. v. Govind Singh & Ors. (2023), held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts