Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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