Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that condoning delay in presenting an appeal is a discretionary power, which warrants liberal and justice oriented approach in order to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold.

"Condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial," a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta said.

The court pointed out that sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. 

"Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’," the bench added.

Distinguishing between the two, the bench said that an ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack.

"It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true," the bench stated.

The bench further opined, "An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault, the bench said, adding care must be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’."

Maintaining that there is no formula that caters to all situations, the bench said, "We cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

The court explained different facets of the condonation of delay while dismissing an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's 2011 judgment which allowed the Union government's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The court pointed out that the explanation put forth by the first respondent, which ultimately found favour with the High Court, 'revealed the lamentable institutional inefficiency and the deplorable bureaucratic inertia', including making provisions for requisite court fee of Rs 51,36,592 for filing appeal against enhanced compensation for land.

The bench said that the high court’s decision to condone the delay with Rs 10,000 cost on account of the first respondent’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned, did not suffer from any error warranting interference.

"Such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored," the bench said.

"Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests," the bench added.

Case Title: Sheo Raj Singh vs Union of India