Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Gross Negligence and Inaction Cannot Be Overlooked in Condonation of Delay: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Due to 14-Year Delay Without Satisfactory Explanation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2024, the Court addressed the pivotal issue of condonation of delay, emphasizing the impermissibility of gross negligence and lack of due diligence in the context of legal procedures.

 

The appeal pertained to a land dispute involving the appellant, K.B. Lal, challenging the orders of the High Court and lower courts, which dismissed his application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC. The application sought to recall an order proceeding ex-parte against him due to an 11-year delay in filing and a subsequent 6-year gap in taking action. The key issue was whether such a significant delay could be condoned under the provisions of the Limitation Act.

 

Doctrine of Liberal Construction: The Court recognized that the term ‘sufficient cause’ should be liberally interpreted to promote justice. However, this does not extend to cases of gross negligence or lack of due diligence (Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.).

Judicious Exercise of Discretion: The Court observed that discretion in condoning delay must not favor parties demonstrating gross negligence or inadequate reasons for delay (Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.).

Role of Vigilance and Bona Fides: The necessity for litigants to demonstrate bona fides and vigilance in legal proceedings was underscored, with the Court cautioning against accepting fanciful or concocted explanations for delay.

Analysis of the Appellant's Conduct: The Court noted contradictions in the appellant's explanations and lack of immediate action even after becoming aware of the ex-parte order. This was seen as indicative of gross negligence.

Decision: The Supreme Court found no satisfactory explanation for the appellant's 14-year delay. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and timely action in legal proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Date of Decision: April 08, 2024

K.B. Lal vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.

Similar News