'Question of limitation not merely technical consideration,' SC rejects plea by Centre to condone delay in suit related to Pune cantonment bungalow

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration as the rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and J B Pardiwala dismissed a petition by the Union government against the Bombay High Court's judgment declining a plea to condone delay of over 12 years in filing an application to restore a writ petition dismissed on default and due non prosecution.

"We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants," the bench said.

The court noted the issue pertained a bungalow in Cantonment area in Pune which was still in possession of the Union government, though a 1981 suit was decreed against it.

Attorney General R Venkataramani, on behalf of the Union government said he has a very good case on merits and the delay of 12 years and 158 days deserved to be condoned. He also said the property is situated within the Pune cantonment which fell under the ownership of the Union government.

"Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case," the bench said.

The court also said it hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a state or Union government when it comes to condoning such a gross delay.

In the case, the bench pointed out the HC suggested the government to hand over the property to the owner as a condition to restore its petition. However, the appellant declined it.

"We (also) reiterated the very same suggestion... However, the Attorney General regretted his inability to persuade the appellants to hand over the possession," the bench said.

The court said this litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981.

"We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings," the bench said.

The bench said the length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration but from the tenor of the approach, it appeared that the appellants wanted to fix their own period of limitation against what the law has prescribed.

"If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned," the bench said.