Munmun Kaur
Published On: February 17, 2022 at 15:51 IST
Recently, the Gujarat High Court held that financial crisis can be considered as one of the grounds for condonation of delay.
The observation was made by Justice AP Thaker while dealing with a Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring an Appeal from an Order wherein the Applicant was restrained from transferring, alienating, or creating a third party interest in the suit property.
The High Court observed,
“Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay.”
The facts of the Case were that the Trial Court had granted an injunction against the Applicant. The Applicant submitted that he was suffering from financial crisis and had no funds to challenge the impugned Order of the Trial Court or to develop the subject land. Further, now since he gained some financial strength through the help of friends and relatives, he was contemplating the development of the subject land either himself or through some developer.
He also contended that refusing to condone the delay in the present Case would result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.
On the other hand, Respondent No.1 resisted the Application and submitted that the delay was of about more than 1 year, and the reason advanced for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of having financial crisis was not acceptable.
The High Court referred to various Judgments on the matter like that of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, wherein the Apex Court held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay does not matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.
The High Court observed that the decisions relied upon by both sides as to the legality or otherwise of the impugned Order of Injunction had no relevance at that stage.
The High Court further observed that a pivotal point of consideration would be whether the parties concerned have taken dilatory tactics in proceeding with the matter for initiating any Proceedings or whether there is a mala fide on his part or not. Justice AP Thaker opined that the Applicant’s explanation did not ‘Smack of mala fides.’
Therefore, it was held that in the present case, the Applicant made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 399 days occurred in preferring Appeal from Order. Further, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the other side.