The Delhi High Court recently noted that even a brief delay in filing a petition cannot be excused if the litigant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Court emphasized that the length of the delay is not always the determining factor; a significant delay may be excused if adequately justified. Conversely, without a sufficient explanation, even a brief delay cannot be disregarded.

“Of course, length of delay may not be the decisive factor, in the sense that if satisfactorily explained, the delay of much longer period also can be condoned but if the explanation is not satisfactory, delay of even a few days cannot be condoned. Present is a case of absolutely no explanation, what to say of satisfactory explanation of delay in filing the appeal,” the Court said

Justice Girish Kathpalia stressed that condoning a delay is a discretionary power of the Court, which must be exercised judiciously. He further noted that this leniency cannot be granted to a litigant who comes before the Court with unclean hands.

“The expression “sufficient cause” in terms of the Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally. But in the name of liberal construction of this expression, the law related to limitation cannot be rendered otiose,“ the Court said.

The case involved an application by Akash Pack Tech Limited (appellant) seeking the condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a decree passed on October 3, 2018, by an Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karkardooma Court.

Although the deadline to file the appeal before the Delhi High Court was January 2, 2019, the appellant filed the appeal nearly a year later, on December 24, 2019.

The appellant's counsel attributed the delay to "administrative exigency" within the company. However, the Court observed that the appellant's submissions were entirely inconsistent with the evidence on record.

“Falling back to the present case, the submissions advanced today on behalf of appellant are completely inconsonant with record. To repeat, learned counsel for appellant explained the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the official of the appellant dealing with the present litigation left job, so the appellant company lost track of the proceedings," the Court noted.

However, the application for condonation of delay made no mention of any such administrative exigency.

“In the entire application, there is not even a whisper of the alleged “administrative exigency” caused by the concerned official of the appellant leaving his job and the consequent losing of the litigation track by the appellant,” the Court said.

As a result, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay.

Advocate Shubhangda Singh appeared on behalf of Akash Pack Tech (P) Limited, while Advocate Priyanka Rai represented M/s Today Tea Limited, the respondent.