Courts Must Not Legalise Injustice on Technical Grounds: Andhra Pradesh High Court Condones 247-Day Delay in Filing Second Appeal

“Length of Delay Is No Matter—Acceptability of Explanation Is the Only Criterion”, In a significant order High Court of Andhra Pradesh condoned a 247-day delay in filing a second appeal, holding that procedural delay cannot be allowed to override the cause of substantial justice.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, invoking the Supreme Court’s liberal jurisprudence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasized: “Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.”

The Court warned against a pedantic approach to delay, stating: “Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

The petitioner, Tatina Kasi Visweswara Rao, filed the present second appeal against the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed in A.S. No. 2 of 2010 by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, which had reversed the earlier judgment in O.S. No. 50 of 2001 rendered by the Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissing the suit.

The appeal, however, came with a delay of 247 days. The petitioner, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, sought condonation, citing ill health, non-intimation by his earlier counsel, and lack of awareness about the appellate court’s decision until November 2022.

He explained that he had fallen seriously ill, suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure, and was only able to engage with legal counsel again in early February 2023, after recovering.

Respondents’ Opposition and Legal Precedents Cited

The respondents, represented by senior counsel, strongly opposed the plea, arguing that:

• The explanation lacked medical proof.

• The delay was not bona fide, and the affidavit was vague.

• No justifiable reason existed for such an extended period of inaction.

They relied on binding precedent, including:

• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612), where the Supreme Court emphasized: “Delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity… Once it is held that a party has lost his right due to inaction, he cannot plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred.”

• Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, where the Apex Court held: “Justice must be done to both parties equally. If a party has been thoroughly negligent… it will be unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right accrued in law.”

Justice, Not Rigidity, Is the Guiding Principle

Justice Gopala Krishna Rao acknowledged the binding value of the above precedents but clarified that each case must be weighed on its own facts. The Court drew a clear distinction from the cited cases, noting that those involved delays of over 5 years and 778 days, unlike the 247-day delay in the present case.

Reaffirming the guiding principles laid down in Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji and Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, the Court reiterated: “The expression ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic… Courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold.”

The Court also observed: “Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can cause the cause of justice to be defeated.”

Responding to the absence of medical documentation, the Court noted that litigants from rural and semi-urban backgrounds may not always preserve medical records, and such technical gaps must not obscure the larger cause of justice, especially where there is no deliberate negligence or abuse of process.

Condonation Granted with Cost to Offset Prejudice

Allowing the petition, the Court concluded: “In the case on hand, the petitioner has not displayed any deliberate or mala fide conduct. The explanation is acceptable. Delay must not become a tool to obstruct substantial justice.”

However, recognizing that condonation of delay may cause inconvenience to the respondent, the Court balanced equities by directing: “The petitioner shall pay ₹5,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff on or before 04th August 2025, failing which the application shall stand dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025