The Supreme Court in a recent case underscored the importance of adhering to legal timelines and upholding principles of equity in a case concerning the condonation of delay in a land dispute matter. The decision, handed down by Justices Aniruddha Bose and J.B. Pardiwala, serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles that govern the Indian legal system.

The case in question involved an application for the condonation of a substantial delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing a restoration application for a writ petition. The appellant, the Centre, sought to have the delay condoned in order to pursue its claim over a piece of land. However, the Bombay High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, declined to condone the delay.

The genesis of the dispute dates back to a civil suit filed by the respondent in 1981, seeking possession and arrears of rent for a leased property. Following a protracted legal battle, the suit was eventually decided in favor of the respondent, granting them possession of the disputed premises. Subsequently, the appellants challenged the decree before the first appellate court, only to face dismissal of their appeal. The suit, ultimately, met its demise due to non-prosecution in 2006.

Arguing on behalf of the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian contended that the delay in filing the restoration application should be condoned, emphasizing the government's interest in retaining possession of the land. They asserted that the respondent, a private party, should not be allowed to deprive the government of its rightful claim, especially considering the admitted ownership of only the superstructure and not the land itself.

However, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, found the explanation provided by the appellants for the substantial delay lacking in merit. Justices Bose and Pardiwala underscored the significance of adhering to rules of limitation, emphasizing that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration but one rooted in principles of equity and public policy.

In its deliberation, the Court reiterated that delay cannot be excused as a matter of generosity and that rendering substantial justice should not come at the expense of prejudicing the opposing party. The Bench emphasized that the Court's primary duty lies in ascertaining the bona fides of the explanation offered for the delay, and only upon satisfactory demonstration of sufficient cause, may the merits of the matter be considered.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, affirming that it did not err in refusing to condone the delay. The Court's ruling underscores the importance of adherence to legal timelines and the principles of equity and public policy in the administration of justice.

Case: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019).

Click to read/download judgment.