Supreme Court of India.
Credit: iStock
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule, as it set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which permitted the Karnataka Housing Board to file a second appeal in a partition suit with delay of 3966 days.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the State or any of its instrumentalities cannot be accorded preferential treatment in matters concerning condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
"Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay. Absent such justification, delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of the identity of the applicant,'' the bench said, in a judgment on September 12, 2025.
The court gave an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays should not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout.
"Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude,'' the bench said.
The bench said the High Courts should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy.
The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. The litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages, the bench said.
"We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law,'' the bench said.
The court set aside the HC's judgment of March 21, 2017. Besides the costs of Rs 25,000 imposed by the High Court to be paid by Karnataka Housing Board to the appellant, the court also imposed an additional cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.
It allowed an appeal filed by Shivamma (dead) through legal representatives with regard to 9 acres and 13 guntas of land. The bench directed the court of Principle Judge (Junior Division), Kalaburagi, to proceed with the execution of the decree in favour of the appellant and conclude the proceedings within a period of two months