Supreme Court Emphasizing The Importance Of Adhering To The Law Of Limitation

The Supreme Court overturned the order of the High Court in which it had condoned an inordinate delay in a case relating to a dispute of immovable property which has been the subject matter of protracted litigation. The dispute relates to a property situated at Byrasandra, Bangalore, which originally belonged to one Venkatappa, who purchased it in 1916. The property had been partitioned within the family, and a number of litigations have been filed from time to time. The current appeal is the culmination of these disputes, with the appellants challenging a High Court order that favored the respondents.

Background of Case: The property has been in litigation since 1960, starting with a suit filed by Venkatappa against his family members. Thereafter, a suit for specific performance was filed against the appellants with O.S. No. 33/1971 which was disposed of directing refund of earnest money. Then the deceased respondent A. Krishnaiah filed O.S. No. 104/1972 for similar reliefs which ended in dismissal on merits. Undeterred by the two setbacks, A. Krishnaiah filed the present suit O.S. No. 603/1977, later renumbered as O.S. No. 1833/1980 for possession and other reliefs.

Dismissal and Abatement: O.S. No. 1833/1980 was dismissed for default in the year 1983 and was restored in 1984. Thereafter, it was again dismissed for abatement in the year 2000 due to failure of respondents to bring the legal heirs of one of the defendants on record.

Application for Recall: The respondents filed an application to recall the dismissal in 2006 (Misc. Case No. 223/2006), which was dismissed by the Trial Court in 2014. The Trial Court held that the rights of the deceased respondent had already been decided in prior suits and that there was an inordinate delay in filing the recall application. The Trial Court also noted that the suit was hit by res judicata.

The High Court condoned the delay of approximately 2200 days in filing the application for recall. However, the Supreme Court observed that the original suit was of 1977 and already 6 years of delay had occurred in filing the application for recall and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and expressing concern over the High Court's lack of judicial restraint the Apex Court set aside the High Court's order.

The Apex Court pointed out that the High Court had failed to consider the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting the recall application. The Supreme Court gave adequate emphasis on the law of limitation and explained that it was enacted not to destroy rights but to avoid dilatory tactics. It further expressed that the High Court showed a complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints.

The Supreme Court disapproved and warned against the use of "liberal approach" or "substantial justice" for closing one's eyes to the law of limitation. It observed that before condoning a delay, the court must first find out the bona fides of the explanation given by the party seeking condonation.

Raising the issue of "Public Policy", the Apex Court emphasized that the rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and equity and that no court should allow a case to hang over a litigant for an indefinite period. The Supreme Court expressed its concern about the inordinate delay in the case, where the original suit was filed in 1977 and is still pending at the stage of leading evidence.

The Apex Court further emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stressing that it is not a mere technicality but a matter of public policy and further observed that the respondents had already lost two rounds of litigation and had not filed any challenge to the orders passed in those cases, yet they continue to file suits.

The court held that in earlier litigation the conduct of the deceased respondent was not found to be bona fide and as contended by the appellant the Suit was covered by res judicata as all issues had been determined in the earlier suits.

Thus, Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restored the original order passed by the Trial Court refusing to recall application.

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Between: H. Guruswamy & Ors Vs A. Krishnaiah
Date of Judgment: 08-01-2025