LexH. GURUSWAMY & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 764 : 2025 INSC 53 H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRs. (Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025) 08 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the trial court rejecting application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be set aside by the High Court, which was challenged in the present appeal; The appellants submitted that there was a delay of six years (about 2200 days) in filing the application for recall itself; and the High Court proceeded to condone the delay of about 2200 days without adverting to any of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application filed for recall. Headnotes† Limitation – Rules of limitation are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly – They are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity: Held: 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 – The High Court exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties – 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 – The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay 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 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 765 H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRs. 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 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 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. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13. List of Keywords Application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; Delay of six years in filing application for recall; Condonation of delay; Rules of limitation; Dilatory tactics; Principles of sound public policy; Principles of equity. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 7220 of 2014 Appearances for Parties Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., Suraj Kaushik, Shivraj Singh, Abhishekh Singh (for M/s. Nuli & Nuli), Advs. for the Appellants. Rajesh Mahale, Sr. Adv., Parikshith Maliye, Ms. Anuradha Bhat, Harisha S. R., Advs. for the Respondents. 766 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 30.01.2020 in Misc. First Appeal No. 7220 of 2014 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) by which the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on the file of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.