Court has stepped in to ensure, substantive rights of private parties and State are not defeated simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon sufficiency of cause shown and degree of acceptability of ‘explanation’, length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable ‘explanation’ being proffered, delay of shortest range may not be condoned. Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as same, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

It is important to bear in mind, we are not hearing whether to condone or not. We are hearing, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 has not accepted governmental lethargy, tardiness and indolence. Yet, exercise of discretion by High Court has to be tested on a justice-oriented approach. We do not consider discretion to have been exercised by High Court in an arbitrary manner. It is not liable for interference.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015].

Mentioned: *Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

Delhi High Court undertook ‘Zero Pendency Court Project Report’ to collect data and examine meticulously, life cycles of legal cases. ‘Zero Pendency Court Project Report‘ was inspired by a remark of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah (Former CJI) in a conversation with Justice Ravindra Bhat, Member of State Court Management System Committee of Delhi High Court.

PENDING CIVIL CASES
West Bengal: Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malda – Partition Suit No. 30 of 1952 – 04.04.1952; Civil Judge, Senior Division, Medinipur – Other Suit No. 39 of 2017 – 15.09.1953.

Uttar Pradesh: Civil Judge, Junior Division, Varanasi – Original Suit No. 319 of 1953 – 02.07.1953.

PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
Maharashtra: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati – R.C.C. No. 2319 of 1959 – 11.04.1959; CJJD & JMFC, Mehkar – R.C.C. No. 61 of 1960 – 06.10.1959; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati – R.C.C. No. 778 of 1961 – 30.08.1961.

– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar, Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, [Civil Appeal No. 4286 of 2023] decided on 20.10.2023.

_____

Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 observed, there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay as Courts are not supposed to legalize injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 15621-15622 of 2021] decided on 25.04.2024.

_____

Also see, A.B. Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman, [Civil Appeal Nos. 9975-9976 of 2024] decided on 29.08.2024.

_____

Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531 has considered impersonal nature of functioning of State, taking note of what was observed in State of Manipur v. Kotin Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408. Also see, A.B. Govardhan v P. Ragothaman, (2024) 10 SCC 613. Considering above pronouncements and on an overall circumspection, we are of opinion, Second Appeal deserves to be heard, contested and decided on merits.

– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6145 of 2024] decided on 21.03.2025.

_____

There appears to be a cleavage of opinion expressed as regard meaning and interpretation of the expression ‘within such period’ occurring in Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963. It becomes as clear as a noon day, the said phrase includes both original period of limitation prescribed as well as period of delay leading up to actual filing. There can be no question of construing ‘within such period’ as making a reference either to only original period of limitation or to only actual period of delay after expiry of limitation.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 expressed its deep anguish over routine manner in which State and its instrumentalities continue to seek condonation of delay on pretext of bureaucratic inefficiencies. Court held, in view of Postmaster General, (2012) 3 SCC 563, any delay as a result of unavailability of documents or process of arranging for them is no longer acceptable.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, [Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025] decided on 12.09.2025.