Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, he prayed that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. 770
12. We take notice of the following glaring features of the matter: (i) The original suit is of the year 1977. The said suit came to be re-numbered as Original Suit No. 1833 of 1980. It has been 48 years that the suit is pending for recording of evidence. (ii) The Original Suit No. 1833 of 1980 came to be dismissed for default in the year 1983. The same was restored in 1984. (iii) The defendant No. 4 in Original Suit No. 1833 of 1980, namely, Nagaraja passed away on 4.12.1999. (iv) The respondents herein were granted opportunities on 6.03.2000, 18.7.2000 and 22.8.2000 respectively to bring the legal heirs of the defendant No. 4 on record. Having failed to do so the suit ultimately came to be dismissed as having stood abated. (v) The rights of the deceased respondent No. 1 had already been decided in the suit filed for specific performance i.e. the Original Suit No. 33 of 1971. (vi) The respondents having obtained the certified copies on 26.8.2005 preferred the Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on 06.03.2006. (vii) Indisputably, there is a delay of 6 years (about 2200 days) in filing the application for recall itself.
13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? 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”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.
14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.
15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay [2025] 1 S.C.R. H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRs. should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, 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. 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.
17. 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.
18. For all the foregoing reasons this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
19. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc. No. 223 of 2006 is hereby restored. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose