Limitation--Condonation of Delay--Principles to be followed:; 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.; 2. Refusing a condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.; 3. ‘’Every day’s delay must be explained’’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.; 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.; 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.; 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so--Limitation Act, 1963, S.5.; Jain Motors Regd. Patiala v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 191 (P&H)
Posted on: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:26:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015