No relief for negligent litigants: HC says delay can’t be condoned without sufficient cause

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that courts cannot condone inordinate delays in filing or re-filing appeals merely on the basis of vague explanations or in the name of “substantial justice.” Emphasising that the law of limitation is a substantive provision and not a mere technicality, the Bench made it clear that a “liberal” or “justice-oriented” approach cannot override statutory mandates.

“Where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the sufficient cause, which means an adequate and enough reason,” Justice Vikram Aggarwal held while dismissing an appeal delayed by 236 days in filing and 867 days in re-filing.

“No court would be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever,” he asserted, adding that condoning delay without proper justification would amount to disregarding the law itself.

The ruling came in a matter where the applicants not only delayed approaching the appellate court but were also found to have been negligent during the trial. More than 15 opportunities were granted for filing replication, and despite seven continuous hearings after issues were framed, not a single witness was produced. Justice Aggarwal asserted that such conduct showed a clear absence of diligence or bona fides.

Tracing the history of limitation law from 1859 to the enactment of the present statute in 1963, the court underlined that time limits were consciously fixed by the legislature for different kinds of legal actions. Justice Aggarwal asserted law of limitation was not as clearly defined as it was today. For decades prior to 1859, there was no uniform or codified framework to govern how long a person could wait before initiating legal action. In the absence of a consolidated statute, different regulations were sporadically framed to fix deadlines, leading to uncertainty and inconsistency in litigation timelines.

It was only in 1859 that the first comprehensive law on limitation was enacted. It came into effect in 1862 and Act was followed by successive refinements — as lawmakers continued to recalibrate the contours of limitation.

The most enduring version came in 1908 with the enactment of the Limitation Act, which governed the field for decades. However, the post-independence period saw a growing need for revision. The Law Commission, in its third report dated July 27, 1956, recommended sweeping changes and a Limitation Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 23, 1960. But with the House’s dissolution, the proposed legislation lapsed, only to be revived again in 1962. It was this version that finally crystallised into the present-day Limitation Act, which came into force on January 1, 1964.

Before dismissing the plea, Justice Aggarwal added: “The concept of liberal approach, justice-oriented approach, substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantive law of limitation.”