N. BALAKRISHNAN versus M. KRISHNAMURTHY

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 03-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

N. BALAKRISHNAN 
A 
v. 
M. KRISHNAMURTHY 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
B 
Limitation Act, 1963 : Section 5. 
Delay-Co11do11atio11 of-Discretion of cowt--Exercise of-Guidelines 
stated-Def e11da11t filed an application to co11do11e delay of 883 days in 
C 
approachi11g the court to set aside ex-parte decree against him--No11-action 
011 the part of his advocate cited as expla11atio11 for the delay-Defendant also 
complained about the conduct of his advocate before Consumer Redress al 
Fomm and received Rs. 50,000 as co111pe11sation-T1ial cowt accepted defen-
dants apla11atio11 for delay and condoned it-However; High Court in D 
revision set aside the trial court's order 011 ground that defendant was negligent 
and not careful enough to ve1ify the stage of proceedings at any point of 
time-Held : Words "sufficient cause" should be co11stmed liberally-Le11gt.h 
of delay is 11ot releva11t; acceptability of explanation is the only criterion-/11 
the absence of ma/a fide i11te11tion or deliberate delay as a dilatOI)' strategy, 
E 
court must condone the delay-But while doing so court should bear in mind 
the litigation expenses incwred by opposite pa1ty and should compe11sate him 
accordi11gly-011ce court co11do11es delay in positive exercise of discretio11, 
supe1ior court, more particularly revisional court, should not non11ally disturb 
such co11do11atio11-But if co11do11atio11 is refused it would be open to superior 
court to come to its own finding after considering the cause of delay afresh-In 
the circumstances of the case, High Court in revision e1red in upsetting the 
trial cowt's order condoning the delay especially when the defendant's co11-
duct does not 011 the whole wanwlt castigati11g him as an i1Tespo11sible litigant 
having regard to one's busy occupation in present day's life. 
Time-limit-Fixatio11--0bject of-Held: Not meallt to destroy rights of 
parties-/( is founded 011 public policy-Lifespan for legal remedy is f1JCed for 
general welfare. 
Words a11d Phrases : 
403 
F 
G 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
"Sufficient cause''-Meaning of-In the context of S. 5 of the Limitation 
Act, 1963. 
Maxims: 
"Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium---1\feaning of 
B 
The respondent filed a suit, which was decreed ex pane against the 
appellant-defendant. The appellant filed an application to set aside the 
ex-pane decree and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limita-
tion Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of883 days. Non-action on the part 
of the appellant's advocate was cited as a cause for the delay. The appellant 
C also filed a complaint against the said advocate before the District Con-
sumer Disputes Redressal Forum and received a compensation of Rs. 
50,000. The trial court accepted the appellant's explanation for the delay 
and condoned it. However, the High Court in revision set aside the order 
of the trial court on the ground that the appellant was negligent and was 
D not careful enough to verify the stage of the proceedings at any point of 
time. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the 
E dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. lime-limit 
fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the 
expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. [ 409-8) 
1.2. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. 
They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek 
F their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair 
the damage by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fJXes a life-span 
for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal in.iury so suffered. The law 
of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim 
Interest reip11blicae 11p sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a 
G period be put to litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept 
alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. [ 409-C-F] 
2.1. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not say that such discretion can 
be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is 
H no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes 
N. BALAKRISHNAN v. M. KRISHNAMURTHY 
405 
delay of the shor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.