The Supreme Court pulled up the Madhya Pradesh High Court for casually condoning a 1,612-day delay by the state in filing a civil petition. The top court set aside the order and sent the matter back for fresh consideration under settled law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Madhya Pradesh High Court for allowing a very long delay of 1,612 days by the state government in filing a petition in a civil case. The top court said it was unhappy with the way the High Court condoned the delay and questioned whether it had followed settled legal principles on limitation.
A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and P B Varale noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed the order on September 1, condoning the delay without properly examining the reasons or even seeking a clear explanation from the state government.
The Supreme Court said such an approach was not acceptable under law.
Expressing its concern, the Bench observed,
“We are dismayed to say from the tenor of the impugned order that the high court condoned the delay of 1,612 days on mere asking without highlighting the sufficient cause that might have been assigned by the state,”
as recorded in its order dated December 5.
The Supreme Court reminded the High Court that the law relating to limitation and condonation of delay has been clearly laid down in several earlier judgments.
The Bench questioned whether the High Court had taken note of those rulings before passing the order.
The Bench said,
“The law, in so far as limitation and condoning delay is concerned, is well-settled. We wonder if the high court is aware of the following decisions of this court: Union of India versus Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs v Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.”
The court further emphasised that it has repeatedly explained how courts must examine the concept of “sufficient cause” before allowing any delay, especially when the delay is very long.
It stated,
“In the recent past, this court has delivered judgments explaining in what manner the sufficient cause has to be looked into and the plea for condonation of delay is to be considered,”
making it clear that casual condonation defeats the purpose of limitation law.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, argued that the delay had occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this reason was not mentioned at all in the High Court’s September 1 order.
The Bench observed,
“In such circumstances, referred to above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the high court and remand the matter to the high court for fresh consideration of the intervention application for condonation of delay,”
making it clear that the earlier order could not stand.
The Supreme Court directed that the High Court must hear all parties again and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
With these directions, the top court disposed of the matter, reinforcing that even government authorities must follow limitation rules and cannot expect automatic relief for long delays.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Civil Petition
