Recently, the Supreme Court raised serious concerns over a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that condoned a delay of more than four years by the State Government in filing an appeal, stressing that such leniency cannot be granted as a matter of routine. The Apex Court remarked that the approach adopted by the High Court appeared to be contrary to the settled principles governing limitation and condonation of delay.
The case arose from an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 1, by which it condoned a delay of 1,612 days in filing an appeal by the State Government. Under the Limitation Act, appeals are required to be filed within prescribed timelines, and any delay must be supported by a satisfactory explanation demonstrating “sufficient cause.” The High Court allowed the State’s application for condonation of delay, citing a liberal approach, without detailing the reasons that justified such an extraordinary lapse of time.
Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant contended that the High Court had mechanically condoned the delay solely on the basis of a vague affidavit filed by the State, which did not disclose any real or convincing explanation. It was argued that the order ignored binding precedents of the Supreme Court, which consistently hold that the State does not enjoy any special privilege in matters of limitation. On the other hand, the State Government submitted that the delay occurred due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prasanna B. Varale expressed dismay at the manner in which the High Court condoned the delay “on mere asking,” without identifying any sufficient cause. The Bench noted that the law on limitation is well settled and wondered whether the High Court was mindful of authoritative Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy and Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board. The Court reiterated that repeated rulings of the Supreme Court make it clear that the State or its instrumentalities cannot be granted preferential treatment under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Holding that the High Court failed to record any valid reasons for condoning such a prolonged delay, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court has been directed to re-examine the application for condonation of delay in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and to pass a reasoned order.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
