A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines whether a delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing a restoration application for a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution could be condoned. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s refusal to condone the delay, emphasizing the principles of equity, sound public policy, and diligent prosecution. The court underscored that gross delays undermine the purpose of limitation laws, irrespective of whether the party is the State or a private litigant.

Keywords: Limitation, Delay condonation, Sufficient cause, Public policy, Judicial discretion.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR
• Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4672 of 2024
• Judgment Date: April 3, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Aniruddha Bose and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
• Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.
• Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 76; 2024 INSC 262
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963
  • Order XX, Rule 12(1), CPC
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Law Subjects: Civil Procedure, Limitation Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from a 43-year-old litigation initiated by the respondent in 1981 to recover possession of a leased property. Despite obtaining a favorable decree in 1987, the respondent faced prolonged delays due to multiple appeals and non-compliance by the appellants, the Union of India. The pivotal issue was whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the appellants’ inordinate delay in seeking restoration of their dismissed writ petition.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The property in question was leased to the Union of India in 1951. Due to breaches of the lease terms, the respondent filed a suit in 1981 for possession and rent recovery.
2. A decree favoring the respondent was passed in 1987. The appellants’ appeal was dismissed in 1992.
3. The appellants filed a writ petition in 1993, which was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2006.
4. In 2013, the respondent initiated execution proceedings, which were resisted by the appellants.
5. The appellants sought restoration of the writ petition in 2019, filing an application for condonation of a delay of over 12 years.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court erred in declining to condone the delay in filing the restoration application.
2. Whether the appellants demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Whether the refusal to condone the delay violated principles of substantial justice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Merits Should Prevail Over Procedural Technicalities: The learned Attorney General argued that substantial justice required condonation of the delay due to the merits of the case.
2. Ownership of the Land: The appellants contended that the land in dispute was government-owned and vital to national interests.
3. Human Error: The delay was attributed to inadvertent oversight and bureaucratic complexities, which should be liberally construed in favor of the State.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Sufficient Cause: The respondent argued that the appellants failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay.
2. Equity and Public Policy: Allowing such a grossly delayed application would prejudice the respondent, who had waited over four decades to enforce the decree.
3. Dilatory Tactics: The appellants’ actions demonstrated gross negligence, and condoning the delay would set a dangerous precedent.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963: Requires a litigant to show sufficient cause for delays beyond the prescribed limitation period.
2. Order XX, Rule 12(1), CPC: Governs the calculation of mesne profits in decrees for possession.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Length of Delay as a Determinative Factor: The court held that delays exceeding reasonable bounds cannot be condoned without bona fide justification.
2. Equality in Law: The rules of limitation apply equally to the State and private parties.
3. Litigation as a Public Policy Issue: Courts must balance substantive justice with procedural discipline to prevent misuse of judicial resources.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. The court remarked on the lack of diligence and bona fides in the appellants’ approach, emphasizing the principles of equity and public trust in the judicial process.

c. Guidelines

1. Strict Scrutiny of Gross Delays: Lengthy delays must be justified by compelling and credible reasons.
2. Accountability of State Litigants: Government entities must ensure diligent prosecution to avoid prejudicing private litigants.
3. Merit Considerations Conditional on Diligence: The merits of a case can only be considered if the party seeking condonation satisfies preliminary procedural thresholds.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s refusal to condone the delay. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial leniency in procedural matters must not compromise substantive justice or encourage litigation lethargy. The ruling underscores the necessity of equity, sound public policy, and the equal application of limitation laws.

K) REFERENCES

1. Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [(2010) 5 SCC 459]
2. Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited [(2012) 3 SCC 563]
3. Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2011) 4 SCC 363]
4. Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448]
5. Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649]