TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. That order of the High Court has given rise to these appeals. 3. Facts barely needed for these appeals are the following : A suit for declaration of title and ancillary reliefs filed by the respondent was decreed ex parte on 28-10-1991. The appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, on coming to know of the decree, moved an application to set it aside. But the application was dismissed for default on 17-2-1993. The appellant moved for having that order set aside only on 19-8-1995 for which a delay of 883 days was noted. The appellant also filed another application to condone the delay by offering an explanation which can be summarised thus : The appellant engaged an advocate (one Shri M.S. Rajith) for making the motion to set t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advocate. The said forum passed final order directing the said advocate to pay a compensation of Rs. fifty thousand to the appellant besides a cost of Rs. five hundred. 5. Though the trial court was pleased to accept the aforesaid explanation and condoned the delay, a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras who heard the revision, expressed the view that the delay of 883 days in filling the application has not been properly explained. Hence the revision was allowed and trial court order was set aside. An application for review was made, but that was dismissed. Hence these appeals. 6. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the High Court for reaching the above conclusion is that the affidavit filed by the appellant was silent as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... visit him with drastic consequences. 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicue up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to....