Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Emphasizes Justice-Oriented Approach in Condoning Delay: "Substantial Justice Deserves to be Preferred"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized a justice-oriented approach while dealing with the condonation of delay in filing appeals. The case, Raheem Shah & Anr. vs. Govind Singh & Ors., pertained to a delay of 52 days in filing an appeal challenging a trial court's judgment.

The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, took note of the appellant's contention that the judgment was not in their knowledge, which warranted consideration. The court cited the landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, stating that the expression "sufficient cause" in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a manner that serves the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court expressed its concern over the prevailing insensitive approach towards delay and stated, "If only the court concerned had been sensitive to the justice-oriented approach rather than the iron-cast technical approach, the litigation between the parties probably would have come to an end much earlier after a decision on the merits of their rival contention."

The court further held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

In light of these principles, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the lower Appellate Court and the High Court and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the file of the lower Appellate Court, where the parties shall put forth their contentions on merits. The court directed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law.

This significant judgment serves as a reminder to all courts to adopt a justice-oriented approach in matters of condonation of delay, allowing litigants a fair opportunity to present their case and ensuring that substantial justice is upheld.

DATE OF DECISION: July 24, 2023

RAHEEM SHAH & ANR. vs GOVIND SINGH & ORS.                 

 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/24-Jul-2023_Raheem_Shah_Vs_Govind_Singh.pdf"]          

Latest Legal News