Inordinate Delay Of 2833 Days Cannot Be Condoned On Vague Plea Of Counsel’s Negligence; Law Of Limitation Exists To Ensure Finality In Litigation: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that courts cannot adopt a liberal approach to condone enormous delays when litigants fail to show “sufficient cause.” Emphasising that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and ensures finality in litigation, the Court refused to condone a delay of 2833 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.

Madras High Court dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of an application seeking condonation of delay and the consequent application to set aside an ex parte decree in a specific performance suit. Justice N. Mala held that the explanation offered by the defendants was vague, lacked bona fides, and demonstrated gross negligence, particularly when they were aware of execution proceedings years earlier.

“A Right Not Exercised For Long Must Come To An End” – Court Reaffirms Public Policy Behind Limitation Law

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024) 12 SCC 336, the High Court emphasised that the law of limitation is designed to bring certainty and finality to litigation.

The Court observed:

“Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself.”

It further noted that although Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows a liberal approach, such discretion cannot be exercised where the delay is enormous and unexplained.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a registered sale agreement dated 09 January 2013, under which the petitioners agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent for ₹3 lakh, receiving ₹2 lakh as advance consideration.

When the defendants allegedly failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed O.S. No.262 of 2014 seeking specific performance and injunction restraining alienation of the property.

Although the defendants initially appeared through counsel, they failed to file a written statement, resulting in them being set ex parte on 21 April 2015. Subsequently, the trial court passed an ex parte decree on 31 August 2015.

Following the decree:

The plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration of ₹1 lakh in court and initiated execution proceedings. Through the court process, a sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 25 April 2018 and registered on 24 July 2018. The plaintiff also took possession of the property in December 2018.

Later, the decree holder sold the property to a third party, Malathi, through a registered sale deed dated 22 October 2020.

It was only after nearly eight years, that the defendants approached the trial court seeking to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application to condone a delay of 2833 days.

Court on Third-Party Rights and Finality of Decrees

Another crucial factor influencing the Court’s decision was the intervention of third-party rights.

The Court noted that after the decree:

The plaintiff obtained a sale deed through execution proceedings, took possession of the property, and later sold the property to a third party in 2020.

The Court therefore held:

“The petitioners, by their deliberate inaction, have allowed third party interest to intervene and therefore, for their own lack of diligence and total inertia in prosecuting the case, the respondent cannot be penalised.”

It emphasised that a substantive right had accrued in favour of the decree holder, which could not be lightly disturbed after such prolonged delay.

Court on Strict Application of Limitation Law

Citing Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Court reiterated that courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds.

The judgment quoted the principle:

“The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it… dura lex sed lex — the law is hard but it is the law.”

Thus, the Court held that liberal interpretation cannot defeat statutory limitation provisions when sufficient cause is absent.

Decision of the Court

The Madras High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 2833 days.

Accordingly:

The Court dismissed CRP No.107 of 2026, which challenged the rejection of the delay condonation application. Consequently, CRP No.6471 of 2025 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree also stood dismissed, as the delay petition itself failed.

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot condone enormous delays based on vague explanations or allegations of counsel’s negligence, especially when litigants had knowledge of proceedings but remained inactive.

By emphasising that limitation law serves public policy by ensuring certainty and finality in litigation, the Madras High Court reaffirmed that substantial justice cannot override statutory limitation where parties fail to demonstrate diligence and bona fide conduct.

Date of Decision: 03 March 2026