Introduction

• This is a landmark judgment relating to application for condonation of delay.
• This judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. BS Chauhan and Justice SA Bobde.

Facts

• The land of the Appellants was acquired in pursuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA).
• After completing the formalities under the Act an award was made fixing market value of the land.
• Aggrieved by the above the appellants filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court along with the application for condonation of delay.
• The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the High Court.
• Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

Issue Involved

• Whether the application for condonation of delay should have been allowed?

Observation

• It is to be noted that it has been admitted that there was a delay of 5 and a half years in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Act.
• The explanation provided for the delay had been that the appellants had taken ill.
• The Court observed that the purpose of the Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy and the aim is to bring peace in the community.
• Regarding the term “sufficient cause” to be shown in order to condone delay the following points were held :
  • The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done.
  • “Sufficient cause” is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for.
  • Further, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
• Thus, the law on this issue was summarized by the Court as follows:
  • Where the applicant has presented the case beyond the period of limitation the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation.
  • No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.
  • In case there was no sufficient cause shown to prevent the litigant to approach the Court on time the delay should not be condoned.
• Thus, the Court in the present case did not allow the application for condonation of delay.

Conclusion

• Application for condonation of delay shall be allowed only in those cases where sufficient cause is shown.
• If the party is unable to show sufficient cause the application for condonation of delay shall not be allowed.

[Original Judgment]