Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala held that “The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants”.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR.

What is the Background of Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR?

• The appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 9th July 2019.
• The High Court declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 2307 of 1993, dismissed for non-prosecution on 10^th October 2006.
• The suit property, leased on 09^th March 1951, led to civil suit No. 2599 of 1981 due to lease breaches.
• The appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed on 29^th August 1992.
• Various legal actions followed, including an unsuccessful attempt to restore the petition dismissed in 2006.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that “We have reached to the conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction”.
• In many decisions of SC, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.
• The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.

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 SC 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