Supreme Court Advocates Liberal Delay Condonation to Advance Justice, Remits Case for Further Proceedings.

The SC set aside the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of a 53-day delay in filing a Review Petition. The SC emphasized that the delay was not exorbitant and should have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted for hearing on merits, instructing parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings. The SC criticized addressing case merits in delay condonation applications, advocating for a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. The delay was satisfactorily explained, and no malafide intent was proven.

---

---

Issues involved: Delay in filing and refiling special leave petitions, condonation of delay in review petition.

Delay in filing and refiling special leave petitions:
The Appellants were Defendants in a suit regarding partition of property, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Appellants filed a Review Petition which was delayed by 53 days. The Appellants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was not opposed by the Respondents. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application, touching upon the merits of the case. The Supreme Court held that the delay of 53 days was not exorbitant and should have been condoned. The Court criticized the practice of touching upon merits while rejecting delay condonation applications and emphasized on advancing substantial justice by giving a liberal construction to the term "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to be heard on merits.

Condonation of delay in review petition:
The Supreme Court found that the delay of 53 days in filing the Review Petition was satisfactorily explained by the Appellants. The Court emphasized that rules of limitation should not foreclose the right of parties to seek remedies promptly and that delay should generally be condoned unless malafide is proven. The Court held that the Appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay, and the impugned order was set aside, remitting the matter to be heard on merits. The Court directed the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings.

---