Supreme Court: Justice Oriented Approach To Be Adopted While Dealing With Delay Condonation Plea

The Supreme Court in the case Raheem Shah vs Govind Singh observed that the courts should adopt the justice-oriented approach rather than the iron-castapproach while dealing with the application of condonation delay.
In the present case, the suit was decreed by the trial court on October 01, 2005 and the defendant filed the first appeal along with the application wherein seeking to condone the delay for 52 days. Thus, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that the delay has not been properly explained on October 08, 2010.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that there being no question of law for consideration on April 16, 2015.
The bench in the case observed and has noted that there was delay of only 52 days in filing of the appeal and the point which is being raised by the appellants were that the that the judgment was not in their knowledge.
Further, the bench in the case observed and has also referred to the case Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, wherein the court stated that the above decision expressing the intention of justice oriented approach percolating down to all the courts was rendered nearly three decades ago but unfortunately the case on hand demonstrates the pervading insensitive approach, thus, which apart from continuing the agony of the litigants concerned has also unnecessarily burdened the judicial hierarchy which after going through the entire process will have to set the clock back, at this distant point in time and prolong their agony.
Therefore, if the court concern had been sensitive to the justice-oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach, the litigation between the parties probably which would have come to an end much earlier after decision on the merits of their rival contention.
The court in the case observed and has noted that the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when the delay was not inordinate.
Accordingly, the bench restored the appeal filed by the lower Appellate Court.