The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, which refused to condone a delay of 12 years and 158 days in the restoration of a writ petition by the Union of India. The case revolved around a property dispute in Pune, where the government failed to act promptly in restoring a petition dismissed for non-prosecution in 2006. The Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory timelines, dismissed the appeal by the government, highlighting that delays of such magnitude cannot be excused merely on the grounds of governmental authority.

Introduction

This case involves a prolonged legal dispute between the Union of India and the respondent, Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, concerning the possession of a property in Pune. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Bombay High Court erred in refusing to condone an extensive delay of over 12 years in restoring a petition that was dismissed due to non-prosecution.

Background

The dispute originated from a lease agreement dated March 9, 1951, between the respondent and the Union of India, where the latter was accused of breaching the lease terms. This led to a civil suit for recovery of possession and arrears, which was decided in favor of the respondent by the Pune court in 1987. The Union of India’s subsequent appeals were dismissed, including a writ petition in the Bombay High Court in 1993.

Dismissal for Non-Prosecution

In 2006, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Bombay High Court for non-prosecution. Despite this, the government delayed filing for restoration until 2019, resulting in a substantial delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court rejected the application for condonation of this delay, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court scrutinized the reasons provided by the Union of India for the delay, finding no substantial justification. The Court pointed out that the government, despite being a large entity, is not immune from the statutory limitations imposed by law. The judgment stressed that condoning such an extraordinary delay would undermine the principles of justice and encourage negligence.

Key Points in the Judgment

1. Merits of the Case: The Supreme Court clarified that it would not consider the merits of the case unless a sufficient cause for the delay was established. The government’s failure to provide an adequate explanation rendered this argument moot.

2. Public Policy and Limitation Laws: The judgment highlighted that limitation periods are grounded in sound public policy, ensuring that disputes are resolved within a reasonable time frame. The delay, in this case, was deemed excessive and unjustifiable.

3. Lack of Bona Fides: The Court pointed to inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the government’s affidavits, further diminishing the credibility of their appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, refusing to condone the delay and restoring the petition. The judgment serves as a reminder that even governmental authorities must adhere to legal deadlines, and failing to do so can result in the loss of their legal recourse. The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of statutory limitations and ensuring that justice is not delayed indefinitely.