Court emphasizes adherence to limitation periods, rejects routine condonation, upholds balance of rights. Appeal dismissed.

The court declined to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods. It stressed the need for genuine and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, cautioning against routine or mechanical condonation. The court highlighted the substantive nature of limitation laws and the balance between citizens' rights and duties. It rejected the imposition of heavy costs for delays, stating that justice should not be compromised. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed at the SR stage, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the second appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 2575 days in filing the second appeal, citing health issues as the reason for the delay. However, the court found discrepancies in the petitioner's claims. The court noted that the appeal papers could not be traced for years, and the only document available was a vakalatnama filed in 2015, not in 2008 as claimed by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of filing within the limitation period, stating that the law of limitation is substantive, and condonation of delay is an exception that must be exercised cautiously and uniformly. The court highlighted that discretion should not be used excessively to avoid defeating the purpose of limitation laws.

The court discussed the importance of genuineness in reasons for condoning delay, emphasizing that each case's facts and circumstances play a pivotal role. It highlighted the purpose of limitation laws to balance the rights of citizens and prevent prejudice. The court stressed that citizens must be vigilant over their rights and duties, and the law of limitation exists to ensure a balance between exercising rights and respecting others' rights.

Furthermore, the court explained that citizens cannot delay seeking redress indefinitely, as the right to defense and potential harassment of the other party must also be considered. The court reasoned that the law of limitation is based on the doctrine of reasonableness, with various time limits set for different types of litigations. It emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive and must be followed scrupulously, with delays only condoned in exceptional cases with genuine and acceptable reasons.

The court cautioned against condoning delays routinely or mechanically, highlighting that exceptions should be exercised exceptionally and discretion should be used discreetly to mitigate any injustice. It rejected the idea of condoning delays by imposing heavy costs, stating that justice should not be compromised under the guise of imposing financial penalties. The court emphasized that costs should not be tied to the number of days of delay and should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where minor lapses do not warrant denial of rights.

In conclusion, the court declined to condone the delay of 2575 days in filing the appeal, dismissing the civil miscellaneous petition and rejecting the appeal at the SR stage. No costs were awarded in this judgment.

---