Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose right of parties

S. Ganesharaju v. Narasamma, (2013) 11 SCC 341

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 

 Or. 47 R. 1 and S. 96 - Review - Condonation of delay - Review against order in regular first appeal - On facts, held,
delay explained properly - Sufficient cause was shown and proved before Single Judge - Delay only for 53 days, held,
would certainly not fall in the category of exorbitant or inordinate delay - Looking to short delay, as a routine, it should
have been condoned and the matter should have been heard on merits, 
 Delay/Laches/Limitation 

 Review petition - Touching the merits of the case while refusing to condone delay - Held, on facts, basic ground on
which the review was filed by appellants was not considered by Single Judge of High Court - Thus, appellants were put
to dual hardship - On the one hand, the delay had not been condoned and on the other hand even the merits were
touched, for which no arguments had been advanced - Reiterated that such practices are disapproved - Impugned order
set aside and quashed - Matter remitted to Single Judge of High Court who had decided the main matter, as per his
convenience, to be heard only on merits of the review petition, in accordance with law - Delay stands condoned,
 Limitation Act, 1963 
 S. 5 - Sufficient cause - Liberal construction - Held, the expression has to be given a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice - Unless the respondents are able to show mala fides in not approaching the court within the
period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned, 
 Limitation 
 Generally 
 Object of - Held, the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties - They are meant to see
that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly, 

Print Page