Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order

Litigation Cannot Be an Endless Process – Delay Must Be Justified with Sufficient Cause - The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on January 29, 2025, has categorically ruled that an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of routine, especially when the party was aware of the litigation but failed to act diligently. The Court strongly criticized the Karnataka High Court’s decision to condone a 586-day delay in filing an appeal without proper justification, reiterating that mere passage of time or reliance on vendor’s assurances is not a sufficient ground for condonation.

"A delay of 586 days is not a minor lapse—it is a clear sign of negligence. The law does not permit a party to remain dormant for nearly two years and then wake up to file an appeal as if it were an absolute right. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and it must be based on a bona fide cause, not mere excuses," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court’s order, held that the respondents (subsequent purchasers) failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for why they remained inactive for such an extended period. The Court emphasized that litigation must reach a finality, and courts should not permit delays that serve only to prolong disputes and frustrate the execution of valid decrees.

"Reliance on Vendor’s Assurances Cannot Justify a Delay in Filing an Appeal" – Supreme Court Rejects Purchasers’ Arguments

The dispute arose when the respondents, who had purchased 4 acres of land during pending litigation, sought to file an appeal against a decree for specific performance after their vendor lost the case. The Karnataka High Court condoned a 586-day delay in filing their appeal, citing their old age (75 and 66 years) and the fact that they were residing abroad and had relied on their vendor to protect their interests.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed this reasoning outright, holding that reliance on a vendor’s assurances does not absolve a purchaser from exercising due diligence.

"Every litigant has a duty to be vigilant. If the respondents had an interest in the property, they should have followed the proceedings and taken necessary steps in time. The law does not provide a remedy for those who knowingly ignore their rights and later seek condonation as a matter of right," the Court ruled.

The Court further noted that the respondents were not ordinary third parties but transferees pendente lite, who had already attempted to be impleaded in the original suit. Their impleadment application had been rejected in 2014, and they had chosen not to challenge that rejection. Given this background, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s lenient approach to delay condonation was legally unsustainable.

"When a party has previously attempted to enter litigation and their claim was rejected, they cannot later claim ignorance of the proceedings. The High Court erred in overlooking this crucial fact," the Supreme Court observed.

"Courts Must Not Encourage Delays That Serve Only to Frustrate Justice" – Supreme Court Lays Down Strict Guidelines on Delay Condonation

The Supreme Court reiterated that condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not automatic and must be based on genuine hardship or circumstances beyond the litigant’s control. The Court laid down clear guidelines on when delay may or may not be condoned, warning that judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously.

"Condonation of delay cannot be granted as a matter of routine. It must be established that the party took all reasonable steps to file the appeal on time and was prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control. The longer the delay, the stronger the justification required," the Court held.

The Supreme Court also stressed that leniency in delay condonation should not be misused as a tool to reopen settled litigation and harass decree-holders.

"Litigation is not meant to be an endless process. There must be certainty and finality in judicial decisions. Allowing long delays without proper justification defeats the very purpose of adjudication," the Court ruled.

With these strong observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the original plaintiffs, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order, and reinstated the trial court’s decree of specific performance. The ruling serves as a strong precedent against excessive delay condonation in appellate litigation and reaffirms that courts must discourage litigants from using delay as a strategic tool to prolong disputes.

Date of decision: 29/01/2025