Delay in government litigation should not be condoned automatically, but a liberal approach may be taken when public interest is involved. Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, particularly when the delay does not appear to be deliberate or due to negligence. Merits of the case must be considered before rejecting a claim on the ground of limitation. (Paras 13–18)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order condoning the delay. Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the State to be paid to the appellant within a month. Directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the Second Appeal on merits. (Paras 19–22)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 (Extension of Prescribed Period in Certain Cases)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI (Execution of Decrees and Orders)

Subjects:

Condonation of Delay – Government Litigation – Liberal Approach – Sufficient Cause – Due Diligence – Merits of the Case – Limitation

Facts:

a. The appellant filed a civil suit in 2012 seeking declaration of title, possession, and injunction over the disputed land.
b. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2013, holding that the land was government-owned.
c. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment in 2015, declaring the appellant as the landlord.
d. The respondent-State’s review petition was dismissed in 2019 due to unexplained delay.
e. The State then filed a Second Appeal in 2020 with a delay of 1537 days, attributing part of the delay to COVID-19.
f. The High Court condoned the delay, prompting the appellant to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the High Court erred in condoning a delay of 1537 days in filing the Second Appeal by the State?

• Whether ‘sufficient cause’ was established to justify the delay?

• Whether the delay should be condoned considering the merits of the case?

Submissions:

Appellant’s Arguments:
a. The State failed to show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation.
b. The Review Petition was also dismissed due to delay.
c. Government litigations should not receive special treatment in matters of limitation.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:
a. The delay was unintentional, caused partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
b. The case involved government land, making adjudication on merits necessary.
c. The High Court rightly took a liberal approach to avoid a technical dismissal.