On January 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Karnataka High Court's order that had condoned a delay of over 2200 days in the revival of a 48-year-old property dispute. The Court restored the trial court's dismissal of the application filed by the respondents, citing a clear lack of sufficient cause for the delay and a disregard for the principles of limitation.
The case centers around a long-running property dispute involving the suit schedule property in Byrasandra, Bangalore, dating back to 1977. Despite various legal setbacks over the years, the respondents, led by the deceased A. Krishnaiah's legal heirs, continued to file multiple suits, with the most recent being a recall application in 2006 after a prior suit had been dismissed for abatement in 2000. The trial court had earlier dismissed the application, observing that the delay in bringing the legal heirs of a deceased defendant to record was neither justified nor explained satisfactorily. Additionally, the court noted the application was barred by limitation and was an attempt to circumvent prior decisions.
The respondents, appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which controversially condoned the delay of over six years and allowed the case to be revived. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's decision deeply flawed.
The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, argued that the High Court had overlooked crucial facts, such as the delay in filing the recall application and the fact that the dispute had been ongoing for decades. He stressed that the delay was an abuse of legal process and that allowing the High Court’s order to stand would revive a suit that had already been dismissed twice.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, contended that the High Court had acted within its discretion to ensure substantial justice between the parties.
In delivering the judgment, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, writing for the bench, stated: "The concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'Justice oriented approach', 'substantial justice' should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation." The Court further emphasized that "time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and equity."
The Supreme Court also pointed out the glaring delay in the case, particularly highlighting that the suit had been pending for nearly five decades and that significant opportunities to resolve the matter were lost due to the respondents’ inaction. "It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay," the Court added.
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was overturned, effectively restoring the Trial Court's dismissal of the recall application.
Picture Source :