The Honb'le Supreme Court in case titled as “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported as (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107, said as under about approach for condonation of delay: -
“xxx xxx xxx And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
- Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
- Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
- "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
- When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
- There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
- It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.”
The principles stated in the above-said judgment were reiterated and reaffirmed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dhiraj Singh (D) through legal representatives & others Vs. State of Haryana”, (2014) 14 SCC 127.
