The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently emphasised that while trial courts should ensure that litigants explain the delay in filing applications, especially by giving a day-to-day account when seeking condonation of delay, the insistence on detailed explanations must be balanced with a pragmatic and practical approach in appropriate cases. The Court stated that the doctrine of requiring a day-to-day explanation for every day’s delay was originally evolved with the objective of addressing the chronic pendency of cases in trial courts and to prevent litigants from deliberately prolonging litigation by filing belated applications without valid reasons. However, the High Court observed that trial courts ought to take into account the nature of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the explanation offered in each case, instead of automatically rejecting applications merely on technical grounds where the delay is substantial but plausibly explained. This understanding was in reference to established legal principles that while sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, courts should recognise that litigation should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than be thwarted at the threshold by strict technicalities. The Court reiterated the principle that a litigant does not benefit from filing an appeal late, and that refusal to condone delay in appropriate circumstances can result in a meritorious matter being ended prematurely without adjudicating substantive rights of the parties. It noted that in suits such as partition proceedings, it is often in the interest of all parties that claims are adjudicated on their merits, and that trial courts must adopt a rational, common-sense approach in balancing the explanation for delay against the objective of awarding substantive justice. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s long-standing jurisprudence which holds that delay explanations must be considered liberally where they are plausible and not attributable to deliberate negligence, but also cautioned that such discretion must be exercised with vigilance and not as a favour, as condoning delay without sufficient cause could prejudice the opposing party’s vested rights.
In the specific case before it, the High Court examined an order of the trial court that had dismissed an application seeking condonation of a delay of over two thousand days along with related interlocutory applications in a long-pending partition suit. The petitioners explained that they became aware of the suit’s pendency only after the death of their father and thereafter took steps to pursue it through legal representatives. The single-judge bench found their explanation believable and held that the trial court should have adopted a pragmatic and practical approach in considering the condonation application, particularly given the nature of the litigation and the interests of justice involved. The High Court observed that the trial court’s strict insistence on a day-to-day explanation without adequately considering the context and the petitioners’ conduct resulted in an undue emphasis on technicality at the cost of substantive justice. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, quashed the trial court’s orders rejecting the applications, and restored the original suit that had been instituted many years earlier. This ruling underscores that although trial courts must guard against undue delays and protracted litigation tactics, they should also recognise situations where explanations for delay, even if lengthy, are credible and warrant a pragmatic approach that allows cases to be decided on their merits rather than being terminated at the threshold due to procedural lapses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.