Condonation of Delay in Indian Law: Balancing Procedural Rules and Substantive Justice

By KASHYAP Views: 17707

When a person's right is violated, he seeks a remedy for that right, which is based on the principle "UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM." To pursue a remedy, one must visit the Court, and for that, the Limitation Act prescribes a specified time in which a suit has to be filed. If that person had failed to file a suit within the prescribed time, then he could seek condonation of delay. If there is a reason for the affected party filing the suit late, then the Court might condone the party for the late institution of the suit.

In any legal system, the principle of limitation ensures that legal actions are initiated within a stipulated time frame. But in reality due to unforeseen circumstances or other uncertainties may cause hindrance to the parties from approaching the court on time. Hence, to serve justice to the parties and to give equal opportunities to present or hear their case, the concept of condonation of delay was brought in by the legislatures and is being enforced by the courts.

Courts have reiterated in a number of judicial pronouncements that a liberal approach should be adopted by while dealing with issues and cases related to condonation of delay. The courts have frequently emphasized that the rigid application of time limits should yield to reason and equity, ensuring that the substance of the claim is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities. Thus, condonation of delay functions as a justice-oriented remedy, balancing the need to uphold the integrity of procedural rules with the overriding imperative of substantive justice.

Under Indian law, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, empowers the courts to condone the delay in filing appeals or applications, provided the applicant shows sufficient cause for not acting within the time limit. The doctrine reflects a balanced approach between strict adherence to procedural law and the need to ensure that substantive justice is not denied due to technical delays.

Statutory Limitations Of Time Period
There are many other Acts that specify the time period during which the law allows them to file a suit. If there is sufficient cause for filing the suit lately, then the Court will condone the delay.

Other enactments that specify the time period are:

S.No.	Name of the Act (Year)	Time Limit to File	Consequences of Non-Filing	Condonation of Delay Permitted? (Provision)	Provision Mentioned	Legislative Intent
1	Hindu Marriage Act, 1955	90 days to file an appeal against a decree (e.g., divorce, annulment)	Appeal will not be entertained if filed after limitation	Yes – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 if sufficient cause shown	Section 28(4), Hindu Marriage Act	To ensure swift resolution in matrimonial disputes while giving scope for justified delays
2	Waqf Act, 1995	30 days to appeal against the order of Waqf Board	Right to appeal is lost if not filed within time	Yes – Tribunal may condone delay in specific circumstances	Section 83(9), Waqf Act	Balancing community religious interests with individual rights
3	Industrial Disputes Act, 1947	3 months to file application for recovery of dues	Delayed applications may be dismissed as time-barred	Yes – Labour Courts can condone with cause	Section 33C(2), ID Act	Protecting workers' rights without enabling frivolous claims long after termination
4	Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972	60 days to file an appeal before the appellate authority	Appeal may not be admitted after delay	Yes – further 60 days can be condoned	Section 7(7), Gratuity Act	Welfare legislation aiming to protect employee retirement benefits
5	Contract Act, 1872 (read with Limitation Act, 1963)	3 years from date of breach to file suit for damages	Claim becomes time-barred	No – strict 3-year limit for filing suit	Article 113, Schedule, Limitation Act	Encourages timely enforcement of contractual obligations
6	Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881	30 days from date of cause of action (dishonour of cheque) to file complaint	Complaint not maintainable beyond 30 days unless condoned	Yes – Section 142(b), NI Act permits condonation	Sections 138 & 142(b), NI Act	To ensure prompt accountability in commercial transactions
7	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996	90 days to file application to set aside award	Petition becomes non-maintainable after 90 days (max 120)	Yes – condonation possible up to additional 30 days only	Section 34(3), Arbitration Act	To maintain finality and efficiency in arbitration awards

Court's View on Condonation of Delay in Various Cases

In the case M/s Ecologique Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Research Centre Fuel Generation, the court emphasized rectifying procedural errors encountered by the defendant in filing the written statement. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 states that a written statement must be filed within 120 days, beyond which the right is forfeited. The court stressed the importance of legislative intent in statutory interpretation and differentiated between filing a written statement and taking it on record.
In G. Sudhakar Reddy v. M. Pullaiah, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that curable defects in filing, like delay in re-presenting returned documents, can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. However, courts must not bypass the parties' right to object, which is fundamental to natural justice.
In M/s Unitech NCCJV v. M/s I.S.N. Raju Infrastructures (P) Ltd., the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that procedural defects in pleadings are curable if they do not affect substantive issues. Delay can be condoned when sufficient cause is shown, but the right to object must be exercised promptly, or it may be waived.
In Chekka Suryanarayana v. Saka Rajulamma, the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed recalling a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. It held that failure to cross-examine does not automatically justify recalling a witness. If the intention is to fill gaps in evidence, such requests may be denied with costs. Accepting such costs without protest implies acquiescence, waiving the right to object.
In Lanka Venkateswarulu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., the Supreme Court held that procedural delays, like not bringing legal representatives on record, are not fatal if justified. However, condonation of a 3703-day delay without sufficient cause was deemed unacceptable, as it violated limitation laws and affected accrued rights of the opposing party.
In Pathapati Subba Reddy (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), the Supreme Court held that curable defects in a land acquisition appeal can be remedied if they do not hinder justice. Long delays in appeals may be waived under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown. A delayed objection results in waiver and finality of proceedings.
In Umesh Challiyill v. K.P. Rajendran, the Supreme Court reviewed an election petition involving a flawed verification affidavit. The court held that cosmetic procedural defects are curable unless they alter core facts. Delay in correction is permissible if justified. Failure to object promptly amounts to waiver of the right to object.
In G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural errors in election petitions, including affidavit issues, are curable if they do not affect the merits. Delays in correction may be condoned for sufficient cause, but timely objection by parties is critical; otherwise, the right to challenge is considered waived.

Conclusion
From the above precedents, it will be very much evident that the Court will always condone the delay in matters relating to the procedural inadequacies in filing the suit. The Court in each of the above cases, will look into the condonation differently. One case speaks that the Court will speak about public policy, another about liberal interpretation, and there are also other reasons where the Court has looked into various aspects, and in all the cases, the Court came to the final decision that if there is a sufficient cause, the Court will definitely condone the delay.

One of the principles of Natural Justice is the Audi Alteram Partem, which means that "two parties of the case have to be given a fair opportunity of being heard by the court". If a court summons a person, it means that the Court is giving an opportunity to the person to be heard; the person who has been summoned should be given a reasonable time to represent themselves. In this case, the written statement was submitted on the 75th day after the defendant had been summoned, which is less than 120 days as per the statutory law. If this is condemned, then it is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

According to the rules of interpretation, one of the rules- Harmonious Construction- states that if there is a conflict between any two statutes, then the statute that delivers proper justice to the parties will prevail in the case. In the given case, there is a conflict between procedural right and substantive concept, i.e., if the defendant had filed a written statement on the 75th day after he had been summoned, but this was rejected by the plaintiff, this would violate the right of the defendant to get justice. According to the code, it is the Court's discretion to take the written statement into account, but not the plaintiff's discretion. Using the harmonious construction, it is very obvious that procedural inadequacies cannot overcome substantive justice. Thus, the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.

The intent of the legislation has to be identified if there is any ambiguity in the language of the legislation, which is known as the golden rule of interpretation. In the above-given case, there has to be a liberal interpretation of the statute because the defendant will get an opportunity to be heard by the Court. No court has to make decisions without hearing the arguments from both parties. Thus, there is no need to make an application if there is a delay in producing a written statement, whereas reasons can be written, but that has to be the discretion of the Court, not the opposing lawyer.

Written By: