In India, the term ‘condonation of delay’ is used to describe the delay caused in bringing cases or applications to the courts. The act of the respective courts condoning the delay in filing an appeal or application is known as condonation of delay. Each Act establishes a deadline for filing any complaint, appeal, or application to the courts or appropriate authorities. The limitation period of the suit or appeal is the time limit set by the court.
The judgments usually elaborate upon the limitation period set by the legislation and clarify whether a delay can be condoned or not. On reasonable grounds, courts usually condone delays since it has been time and again reiterated that courts must take a liberal view of condonation of delay.
Can a massive delay be condoned if no acceptable and suitable explanation for the same has been given?
Should quasi-judicial bodies also take a liberal approach to condonation of delay?
Can a court or tribunal condone a delay even if a formal application is not filed?
What is the limitation period to file a complaint in the Consumer Forum?
The Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court ruling excusing a massive delay of 1011 days in filing a second appeal in a matter where no acceptable or suitable explanation has been given while observing that the High Court has not exercised its authority judiciously.
The Supreme Court has maintained that the Consumer Commission should take a liberal approach to condone the delay. The court, which included Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra, overturned a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had refused to excuse a 207-day delay in submitting the revision case.
In the absence of a formal application, the Supreme Court determined that the Court/Tribunal may exercise its discretion to excuse delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the Court can always order the filing of an application or an affidavit outlining the reasons for the delay.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Consumer Forum cannot overlook a 45-day delay in filing the opposing party's version. The Supreme Court has also stated that this judgment will not affect applications to excuse a delay of more than 45 days in filing the opposing party's version in consumer disputes that were ongoing as of March 4, 2020.
Supreme Court of India
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi on 16 December, 2021
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7696 OF 2021
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Reddy Sridevi & Ors. ..Respondent (S)
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 by which the High Court has condoned a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.12.16 huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, the 16:40:28 IST Reason:
appellant original plaintiff – respondent before the High Court, has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein – original plaintiff filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 40 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein – original defendants. That the Trial Court dismissed the said suit by judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016. That the First Appellate Court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017. That the original defendants – respondents herein applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on 10.03.2017. That after a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents herein – original defendants preferred the Second Appeal before the High Court. Application to condone the delay was also filed being I.A. No.1 of 2021. By the impugned order, the High Court has condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, which is the subject matter of appeal before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the present case, High Court has committed a grave error in condoning huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal. 3.1 It is submitted that as such no sufficient cause was shown by the respondents herein appellants before the High Court, explaining the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal.
3.2 It is further submitted that even while condoning the huge delay of 1011 days, the High Court has also not observed that sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. 3.3 It is further submitted that even considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation whatsoever explaining the delay for the period after 15.03.2017 till June, 2021 till the Second Appeal was preferred.
3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762; P.K.
Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 as well as the decision in the cases of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and No.2 – appellants before the High Court, has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court allowing the application for condonation of delay and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 4.1 It is submitted that when the High Court has exercised discretion and has condoned the delay, the same may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that as rightly observed by the High Court if the delay is condoned in that case the
appeal will be considered and decided on merits and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. It is submitted that in order to enable the respondents – appellants before the High Court, to submit the case on merits instead of nonsuiting them on the technical ground of delay, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
6. At the outset, it is noted that by the impugned order the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants – appellants before the High Court. While condoning the delay, the High Court has observed as under: “In these circumstances, when there are certain questions, which require a debate in the second appeal, it is not necessary that this matter be rejected at this stage, without inviting a decision on merits. lf the delay is condoned though enormous, what happens at best is to give an opportunity to the parties to canvass their respective case. Since this question being of procedure, the attempt of the court should be to encourage a healthy discussion on merits than rejecting at threshold.
Viewed from such perspective, accepting the reasons assigned by the petitioner, the delay in presenting this second appeal should be condoned.
Apparently, there is no wilful negligence on the part of the petitioners nor this attempt suffers from want of
due diligence. It appears being a bonafide attempt on the part of the petitioners to canvass their claim particularly when the trial court had accepted their plea, which was subjected to reversal by the appellate court. However, the petitioners should compensate the respondent by means of costs for this delay. The contention of the respondent that valuable rights are accrued to her on account of inaction of the petitioners in failing to prefer the Second Appeal within time, cannot be a significant factor in the backdrop of the circumstances found in this case.
In the result, this petition is allowed condoning the delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondent on or before 05.10.2021.” Thus from the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days has been made out.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The judgements deal with ‘condonation of delay’ that is used to describe the delay caused in bringing cases or applications to the courts. The act of the respective courts condoning the delay in filing an appeal or application is known as condonation of delay. There is no central or universal legislation governing the condonation of delay. Each legislation usually lays down a time period for which a delay caused in filing a suit may be condoned.
It is important to file a suit timely. However, instances may arrive where an aggrieved person is unable to initiate appropriate action within an appropriate time. This is why most legislation foregoes a delay. Regardless, an aggrieved person who is unable to file a suit within an appropriate time period may be questioned during the trial in this regard. Therefore, it is important to engage the services of an expert lawyer who is well-versed with such instances and will not let a delay become a hindrance in the case.
675+ Lawyers are online 
