Condonation of inordinate delay requires bona fide explanation; a justice-oriented approach cannot override limitation law.

Condonation of inordinate delay requires a bona fide and sufficient explanation, and the length of the delay remains a material factor. The Court held that a liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot override the law of limitation where the explanation is unsatisfactory and the delay is unexplained. Applying that principle, it found the respondents had not acted with due diligence after the suit was dismissed as abated and had failed to justify the belated recall application. The High Court was therefore not justified in condoning the delay of about 2200 days, the condonation order was set aside, and the trial court's order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of about 2200 days and setting aside the trial court's order dismissing the recall application.

Analysis: The suit had remained pending for decades and the respondents had already failed to take timely steps after the suit was dismissed as abated. The explanation for the delay in moving the recall application was found unsatisfactory, and the Court emphasised that limitation is not a mere technicality. While considering condonation, the court must first examine the bona fides of the explanation, and only where sufficient cause is shown can the merits of the main matter be brought into account. The Court held that a liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation, especially where the delay is inordinate and unexplained.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in condoning the delay. The order condoning delay was set aside and the trial court's order was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the respondents' attempt to revive the long-pending suit by belated recall was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of inordinate delay requires a bona fide and sufficient explanation, and the length of the delay is a material factor that cannot be eclipsed by a general plea of substantial justice.

---