Supreme Court clarifies Law of Limitation

?In the latest judgment of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024] 4 S.C.R. 241 : 2024 INSC 286; the Hon'ble Supreme Court (bench of J. Bela Trivedi and J. Pankaj Mithal) has summarized key points on law of limitation as follows:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

?(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

?(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; &

?(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.

In the present case, the Supreme Court has heavily relied upon the decision on law of limitation in Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [ 2013 ] 8 SCR 227.

From a detailed reading of the judgment and directions summarised, it is worthwhile to note that the Supreme Court has emphasised that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have to be strictly construed. What stands out is that the Supreme Court has clarified that the relief of condonation of delay by showing 'sufficient cause' is a discretionary relief and not mandatory in nature and the Courts do not have any power to allow condonation of delay merely on 'equitable grounds'. Moreover, courts cannot condone the delay simply by imposing conditions on the applicant in lieu of condonation contrary to statutory limitation. Therefore, the only ground remaining to plead in an application for condonation of delay would be to show bona fide reasons explaining what prevented the applicant to approach the court within statutory limit.

Another latest case to read, along the similar lines is the Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his L.R. 03.04.2024 [2024] 4 S.C.R. 76 : 2024 INSC 262.

The striking aspect of the judgment in Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy is that the Supreme Court has categorically stated that "...while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."

Considering the huge arrears of cases pending before the Indian courts it is long overdue that the law of limitation is strictly applied, so that at some point a dispute can reach its logical conclusion. In many a cases, the Courts focus on considerations other than sufficient cause, such as equity and merits of the matter, however, as it appears from the latest judgments, the Supreme Court wants the liberal approach to now change.