In a resolute stance against the Union of India’s plea for condoning a substantial delay in filing a restoration suit, the Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of legal time limitations. The Court, in its interim order on Wednesday, rebuffed the Union’s attempt, stating that to overlook such a prolonged delay would be tantamount to undermining the very essence of justice.
The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala, expressed disdain for the Union’s approach, suggesting that it seemed inclined towards setting its own time constraints, contrary to the established legal framework. They emphasized that when a party forfeits its right due to prolonged inaction, it cannot assert a claim for justice over technical considerations.
The judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala underscored the need for courts to prioritize adherence to time limitations. It emphasized that condoning delays should be a balanced consideration, weighing the reasons presented by the litigant against the opposition’s stance, without delving into the case’s merits prematurely.
With the litigation spanning over four decades since its initiation in 1981, the Court emphasized the injustice of compelling the respondent to endure further legal battles due to the Union’s tardiness. It refused to sanction a delay of over 12 years and 158 days, highlighting the unfairness it would impose on the decree-holder.
The Court firmly asserted that regardless of whether the litigant is a private individual or a governmental entity, leniency cannot be extended for gross delays in legal proceedings. It stressed the importance of respecting legal timeframes, grounded in principles of equity and public policy, to prevent indefinite uncertainty for the parties involved.
The dispute stemmed from a property lease agreement between the Union and the respondent, leading to a civil suit in 1981. Despite multiple legal avenues pursued by the Union, including appeals and writ petitions, the prolonged delay in seeking restoration ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of their plea.
In its conclusion, the Court reaffirmed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that substantial justice cannot be achieved at the expense of prejudice to the opposing party. The Union failed to demonstrate due diligence in prosecuting its case, thereby failing to meet the vital test for condoning the delay.
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of upholding legal time limitations, ensuring fairness and efficiency in the administration of justice.
