When humans are mortals, litigation can’t be made immortal: HC while dismissing plea filed after 808 days

The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a plea seeking condonation of delay of 808 days in filing the appeal against a trial court order stating that when human beings are mortal, how the litigation between two parties can be made ‘immortal’.

The high court stressed that under the Limitation Act, to condone the delay, the power has to be exercised by a court on principles which are well understood, and delay ought not to be excused unless there are special circumstances. The court does not have ‘un-limited and un-bridled discretionary powers’ to condone the delay, and the discretion has to be exercised with reasonable bounds known to law, it said.

“One of the essentials while adjudicating upon application of limitation is that the applicant has to show sufficient cause as to why the court should allow the application …the courts are always influenced by the considerations whether the extensions of the period of the limitation is likely to affect the rights which have come to vest in the opposite party with an efflux of time,” the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil observed.

In the case in hand, the complainant, a Ludhiana resident, had filed a plea in the high court in 2022, alleging that in a criminal case, he was not made aware of the proceedings, and the police filed a closure report and the court accepted the same. Further, the discharge application filed by the accused was accepted in January 2018. He had challenged this order four years after it was passed by the trial court and had sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay came out to be 808 days in this category of litigation.

It was argued that the delay had occurred due to the bonafide human mistake and was neither intentional nor deliberate.

The court observed that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. “The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-à-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals,” the bench recorded.

The court dismissed the plea on the grounds of delay, further recording that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any cogent reasons as to why the court should condone the delay. “Besides, if the sufficient reasons are forthcoming in the application to condone the delay which stands satisfactorily explained by the applicant then also the court is not bound to condone the same,” it further recorded referring to an apex court judgment which said, the court, despite the establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.