Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently observed that limitation laws are not mere technicalities but are grounded in principles of sound public policy and equity and that no court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan also emphasised that concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.

"The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly," the bench said.

The court emphasised the length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.

"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," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by H Guruswamy and others against the Karnataka High Court's judgment of January 30, 2020 under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The High Court set aside the order of August 5, 2014, on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

The matter pertained to a suit property in Bengaluru. Despite failing in two rounds of litigation and challenging orders passed in suits filed in 1971 and 1972, the deceased respondent proceeded to file yet another suit for possession and other reliefs by way of an original suit in 1977 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The said suit also came to be dismissed on the first occasion by default in 1983. However, a restoration application was allowed in 1984.

As one of the defendants namely Nagaraja passed away in 1999, the respondents having come to know of the same and having been granted sufficient opportunities on March 06, 2000, July 18, 2000, and August 22, 200,0 respectively, failed to bring the defendant's legal heirs on record as a consequence of which, that suit also came to be dismissed as having stood abated by an order on August 22, 2000.

The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed an application for recall on March 06, 2006. Thereafter, the respondents proceeded to file applications under Order 22 Rule 4, Order 32 Rule 1 & 2 and Order 22 Rule 9 respectively before the trial court in the suit of 1980 seeking to set aside the abatement and bring the legal heirs on record. However, it came to be dismissed.

The respondents proceeded to challenge this order before the High Court, which came to be dismissed as well. It was only thereafter on March 06, 2006, that they proceeded to file an application for recall before the trial court, which by a detailed order in 2014 dismissed it.

The respondents, thereafter, challenged the order of August 05, 2014, before the High Court, which allowed the writ petition thereby condoning the delay of about 2200 days.

Senior advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court proceeded to condone the delay of about 2200 days without adverting to any of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application filed for recall.

He submitted the High Court by its impugned order could be said to have proceeded to revive a suit that had been instituted in the year 1977 i.e., a suit which had been instituted about 48 years ago and was still at the stage of leading evidence.

He submitted that there was a delay of six years in filing the application for recall itself. He pointed out that this was the second instance that the suit came to be dismissed due to negligence and callous attitude on the part of the respondents.

Having heard the parties, the court noted glaring facts of the matter to observe, "We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this?"

The court opined that the High Court had exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.

The court observed that, from the tenor of the respondents' approach, it appeared they intended to set their own period of limitation for initiating proceedings, despite the law prescribing a specific limitation period.

"Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations," the bench said.

The court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision.

Case Title: H Guruswamy & Ors Vs A Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRs