Rules of limitation to avoid ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over litigant for indefinite period: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court had said that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties but they are to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underscored that the length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into account while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.

"Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, and “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation," the bench said.

The court set aside a Karnataka High Court's judgment of January 30, 2020, which set aside an order by Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting a plea for over six years of delay in filing the recall application in respect of a property.

"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. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time," the bench said, in its order on January 8, 2025.

Senior advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for appellant H Guruswamy and others contended the High Court by its order could be said to have proceeded to revive a suit that had been instituted in the year 1977 i.e., a suit which had been instituted about 48 years ago and is still at the stage of leading evidence.

Senior advocate Rajesh Mahale on behalf of the opposite side submitted all that the High Court has done is to condone the delay to do substantial justice between the parties. No error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the order.

After hearing the parties, the bench said, "We are at our wit's end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this?"

In the case, the bench said, the High Court has exhibited a complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a list between the parties.

From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, the court said, "It appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation."

The court explained once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay, and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations.

"While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. 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 bench said.