Chandigarh, July 25: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has categorically ruled that courts cannot condone “inordinate delays” in filing or re-filing legal appeals merely on the grounds of vague justifications or under the guise of delivering “substantial justice.”
Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while dismissing a plea delayed by a total of 1,103 days—236 days in filing and 867 days in re-filing—said the law of limitation is a substantive legal mandate, not a procedural formality to be brushed aside.
“Where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the sufficient cause, which means an adequate and enough reason,” the judge observed.
He firmly stated that no court would be justified in condoning such inordinate delay by merely imposing conditions or invoking broad notions of justice. “Condoning delay without proper justification would amount to disregarding the law itself,” Justice Aggarwal added.
The applicants in the case were also found to have been negligent during the trial itself, having failed to file replication despite over 15 opportunities, and did not produce a single witness over seven continuous hearings after issues were framed.
“This conduct clearly shows a lack of diligence and bona fides,” the court noted.
Justice Aggarwal also delved into the historical evolution of limitation law, tracing it from the fragmented, pre-1859 era to the codified framework of the present Limitation Act, which came into force on January 1, 1964.
He recalled how the first comprehensive limitation law was enacted in 1859 and brought into force in 1862, followed by refinements in 1908. The need for further clarity after Independence led to the Law Commission’s 1956 report, eventually culminating in the 1963 statute.
Reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines, the court concluded:
“The concept of liberal approach, justice-oriented approach, substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantive law of limitation.”
