The Supreme Court has hailed a 2025 judgment authored by Justice JB Pardiwala as the “last nail in the coffin” of its 1987 ruling that it said has been repeatedly invoked to secure condonation of delay, warning that an overly liberal approach to limitation has kept the country “driven back” for decades by allowing litigation to continue despite inordinate delays.
Justice Datta’s remarks underscore a judicial push towards stricter enforcement of limitation periods, with the court signalling that the need to do substantial justice cannot become a licence for litigants, including government bodies, to disregard deadlines and reopen disputes after years of inaction. “We are not going to go by any other judgment. It specifically referred to the court’s ruling in Sheo Raj Singh vs Union of India (2023), authored by justice Datta, which drew a distinction between explaining a delay in the first instance and scrutinising a lower court’s decision to condone it.
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu on Friday criticised the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs Mst Katiji, which condoned a delay of just four days in filing an appeal, saying the judgment had since been treated as a “panacea” for virtually every application seeking condonation of delay. We will go by our own judgment,” said the bench, referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on how applications for condonation of delay and challenges to orders granting such condonation must be examined.
But the principle subsequently acquired a reach that the court now appears keen to rein in, particularly where litigants seek to reopen proceedings after failing to act with reasonable diligence. The court rejected the notion that the explanation need only cover the period after the prescribed limitation period had expired, underscoring that diligence must be demonstrated throughout. The 1987 Katiji judgment had advocated a justice-oriented and liberal approach to condonation of delay, emphasising that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations. In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs Karnataka Housing Board, delivered in September 2025, Justice Pardiwala laid down that a litigant seeking condonation of delay must explain the entire period from the commencement of limitation until the actual filing of the proceeding.
Because of a short, non-deliberate delay, it also stressed that litigants should not be denied a hearing merely.
