Condonation of Delay

9th SEMESTER
ASSIGNMENT REPORT
REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF LLB

(HONS) DEGREE
SUBMITTED BY:
RATNESH DUBEY
ENROLLMENT NUMBER: 35925503820
SUBMITTED TO :
MS. SALONI TOMER
SCHOOL OF LAW
JEMTEC Affiliated to GGSIP University
GREATER NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My special thanks to MS. Saloni ma’am for providing me this opportunity
to associate myself with this project. I would also like to express my
sincere gratitude to sir providing me the most valuable guidance and
affable treatment given to me at every stage to boost my morale and also
helping me in learning law related procedures and activities, which helped
me to add a feather in my cap.
Last but not the least my sincere gratitude to all people who knowingly or
unknowingly supported me, for my moral to make this project a reality.
In India, the legislation which governs and regulates the period within which a suit is
supposed to be instituted is known as the Limitation Act, 1963. This legislation
enumerates relevant provisions regarding the delay in filing application, suit and
appeal under competent jurisdiction and how that delay can be condoned. This
legislation extinguishes the remedy to the party and not the right to file delayed
documents in court which substantially prevents the legal right from getting
defeated.
The limitation Act works on the principle of two legal

maxims which can be stated as follows:
1. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium which means that for the public interest,
litigation must come to an end.
2. Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subveninet which means that court protect
those who are vigilant about their own rights.
Objective And Applicability Of The Limitation Act, 1963

The main objective that the Limitation Act, 1963 serves is to primarily provide a bar
upon the time limit within which the aggrieved party can institute a suit, application
or appeal in the court. If legislation[2] upon limitation is not enacted, then it would
lead to an unconditional and never-ending litigation procedure, as no party would be
concerned to refer a timely litigation and the party will file suit for a cause of action
that has been executed a long time back and which may have no relevance in the
present time.
In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy[3], the apex court held that the

limitation Act, 1963 is primarily based on public policy to fix a time during which the
aggrieved party can ask for a legal remedy for the general welfare.
Meaning of Limitation
The term limitation should be literarily interpreted as the term itself states itâ€™s
meaning i.e. restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited. It means that
the circumstance under which legal remedy is obtained is barred by time as per the
law. The law of limitation[4] specifically prescribes a particular time limit during
which an aggrieved party shall approach the court to receive the legal remedy.
As per the law of limitation, no court shall have the jurisdiction to try a suit, or
entertain an application or appeal, if it is filed after the prescribed period. This
prescribed period has been specifically highlighted under the schedule of the
Limitation Act, 1963 with the head â€œperiod of limitationâ€.
Meaning 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. The rationale behind the
doctrine not including the suit is that this doctrine is regarded as an exception to the
general rule that is Bar of limitation under the legislation and hence, it does not
include suit.
The term condonation means an implied pardon of an offense by treating the
offender as if it had not been committed[5]. Here, the referred offense is the offense
of ignoring the law of period that has been prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963.
The legal representatives of the party pray and humbly requests to the Honâ€™ble
court to pardon their offense of ignoring the law of limitation and proceed as if no
offense has been committed by the party.
Condonation of Delay Under The Indian Limitation Act, 1963-

Primary Focus On Section 5
Section 5[6] of the Limitation Act, 1963 dealt with the extension of the prescribed
period in a certain case. It states that if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the
court that he had a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period, then such an application or appeal shall be admitted
after the prescribed period.
In Ram Kali Kuer v. Indradeo Chaudhary[7] it was held that section 5 does
not provide that an application in writing must be filed before relief under the said
provision can be granted. In Ashok v. Rajendra Bhausaheb Mulak[8] it was held that a
bona fide mistake on the part of the councel in pursuing a remedy is a good ground
for condonation of delay in approaching the right forum in the right kind of
proceedings.
In IOCL v. Subrata Borah Chowlek[9] it was held that though section 5

envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the court, and makes no
distinction between the state and the citizens, nonetheless adoption of a strict
standard of proof in case of Government, which is dependent on the actions of its
official, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions may lead to
grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible
in such cases.
The court should not be lenient enough which would permit the parties to tamper
with the legal right so acquired. The condonation of delay is a remedy and not a right
to the aggrieved party. Even if the party successfully provides a sufficient cause, the
courts have the discretionary power to deal with the application of condonation of
delay.
The expression sufficient causeâ€™ must be literarily construed by the court.

In G. Ramagowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer[10] it was held
that the expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are inaction or
lack of bona fide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.
In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari[11] section 5 gives the court a

discretion with respect to jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial
power and secretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well
understood. The term sufficient causeâ€™ receiving a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nr want of bona fides is
imputable to the appellant.
General Principles[12] to Be Followed:

In Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji[13] The Supreme Court also
gave certain principle which binds the Courts to follow while adjudicating and
interpreting the issue regarding condonation of delay. These are
1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not have the right to receive benefit from filing a
late appeal.
2. Â If the delay is condoned, then the case must be decided after both parties
have been provided with an opportunity of being heard before the court. But if
condonation is refused, then there is a chance that a meritorious matter
would be thrown out on the basis of technicalities.
3. It is not required to take a pedantic approach while dealing with an
explanation of the delay. The doctrine has to be applied in a rational and
pragmatic manner.
4. Between substantial justice and technical considerations, the substantial
justice should be preferred before since the other side cannot contend to have
a superior right in injustice being done under a bona fide mistake.
The court should not presume that the delay is occasioned deliberately or
on account of mala fide or the applicant is guilty of culpable negligence
since no litigant takes recourse to delay the filing of his application.
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan[14] the expression sufficient

causeâ€™ should be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented
approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for
explaining every dayâ€™s delay
Following are the instances when the delay can be

condoned:
1. Subsequent changes in the law

2. Illness of the party
3. Party being a Pardanishin Lady
4. Imprisonment of a party
5. The party belongs to a minority group who has insufficient funds
6. Poverty or paupers
7. Party is a government servant
8. The delay is caused due to pendency of writ petition
9. The party is illiterate
Section 5 applies to all applications except an application under 21 of

code civil procedure. Order 21 of the code deals with the law relating to
the execution of decrees and orders. To obtain an extension of time by
invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Act, the party seeking extension
must satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing the suit,
appeal, revision or objections within the prescribed period.
In Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd[15], SC held that there are two
important considerations which have to be borne in mind while
considering the condonation of delay:
1. The expiration of the period of limitation gives rise to the legal rights in favor
of the decree-holder to treat the decree passed in their favor as binding
between the parties. The legal right which is accrued to the decree-holder by
lapse of time should not be lightly disturbed.
Â
2. If sufficient cause for the execution of delay is shown, then the discretion is
given to the court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Even if
sufficient cause has been shown, the party is not entitled to the condonation
of delay in question as a matter of right. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition
precedent in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction.
Therefore there is no exhaustive list of grounds on which the delay can be

condoned. It has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each
case.
Conclusion
The main objective that the Limitation Act, 1963 serves is to primarily
provide a bar upon the time limit within which the aggrieved party can
institute a suit, application or appeal in the court. The term limitationâ€™
should be literarily interpreted as the term itself states itâ€™s meaning
i.e. restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited.
Condonation of delay is the remedy provided to the parties if they fail to

approach the court during the limit that the law has provided to them.
This remedy is exercised at the discretion of the court. There are
instances where the court didnâ€™t allow condoning an application for a
single day which there are instances where the court condoned the
application after years.
Hence, condonation of delay is a remedy where a meritorious case be
heard after providing a sufficient cause to the court when the prescribed
period has ended.

Condonation of Delay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condonation of Delay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condonation of Delay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9th SEMESTER

REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF LLB

ENROLLMENT NUMBER: 35925503820

MS. SALONI TOMER

JEMTEC Affiliated to GGSIP University

GREATER NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR,

UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

The limitation Act works on the principle of two legal

Objective And Applicability Of The Limitation Act, 1963

In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy[3], the apex court held that the

Meaning Of Condonation Of Delay

Condonation of Delay Under The Indian Limitation Act, 1963-

In IOCL v. Subrata Borah Chowlek[9] it was held that though section 5

The expression sufficient causeâ€™ must be literarily construed by the court.

In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari[11] section 5 gives the court a

General Principles[12] to Be Followed:

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan[14] the expression sufficient

Following are the instances when the delay can be

1. Subsequent changes in the law

Section 5 applies to all applications except an application under 21 of

Therefore there is no exhaustive list of grounds on which the delay can be

Condonation of delay is the remedy provided to the parties if they fail to

You might also like