Supreme Court Upholds Limitation Law, Denouncing The State’s Lack Of Efficiency And Diligence In Filing Appeal

Summary:

[1]The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had condoned a massive 3966-day delay by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) in filing a second appeal. The Court held that administrative lethargy and laxity are not “sufficient cause” for condoning a delay. It emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to the State as to private citizens. The Court also ruled that the explanation for a delay must cover the entire period from when the limitation began until the date of actual filing.

Facts:

• A parcel of land (Survey No. 56/A) originally owned by appellant’s father became subject to a partition suit among legal heirs, during which one party “donated” 4 acres to the Government of Karnataka, and KHB took possession in 1979 to build a housing colony.
•  A compromise decree in 1989 made the appellant the absolute owner of the entire parcel, including the disputed 4 acres, and after initial dismissal, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in appellant’s favor on January 3, 2006, ordering KHB to pay compensation instead of returning the land due to existing construction.
• Since KHB took no action to pay compensation, the appellant initiated execution proceedings on January 20, 2011, to enforce the court’s decree.
•  KHB filed its second appeal with the High Court only on February 14, 2017 – a delay of 3,966 days (approximately 11 years) from the First Appellate Court’s decision, along with an application to condone this substantial delay.

• The High Court condoned KHB’s delay on March 21, 2017, prompting the appellant to file this appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision to excuse such an extraordinary delay.

Issues:

1. What is the meaning and import of the expression “within such period” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
2. When can the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay by a lower court be interfered with by a court on appeal?
3. Whether the High Court in the present case at hand was justified in condoning the delay?

Judgement:

• Interpretation of “within such period” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963- The Court clarified that this phrase includes both the original prescribed period of limitation and the period of delay until the actual date of filing. It rejected the view that the explanation for a delay only needs to start from the last day of the prescribed period. The Court emphasized that a party must explain its conduct for the entire duration from when the limitation period began to tick until the filing date with a “sufficient cause”.
• Rejection of State’s special treatment: The Court firmly stated that administrative lethargy and laxity cannot be a sufficient cause for condoning a delay. It critiqued the previous jurisprudence that provided a “leeway” for the State, citing the 2012 decision of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563. The Court held that public interest is served by compelling government efficiency and accountability, not by condoning its indifference. The KHB’s explanation, which blamed an Executive Engineer, was seen as a superficial attempt to save the officials from accountability.
• Interference by Appellate Court: The Court held that an appellate court can and should interfere with an order condoning delay if the lower court’s decision is “unreasonable or capricious” or if it “ignored relevant facts”. The High Court’s decision was deemed erroneous because it improperly considered the merits of the KHB’s case and condoned the delay on frivolous grounds.
• Final Ruling: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, imposed an additional cost of ₹25,000 on the KHB to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and directed the trial court to proceed with the execution of the decree within two months.

Analysis:

This judgment is a crucial step in reinforcing the sanctity of the law of limitation for all litigants, including the government. It sends an emphatic message to all courts not to act as “surrogates for State laxity and lethargy”. The decision prioritizes judicial discipline, finality in litigation, and the plight of private litigants who often face enormous delays from government entities. It confirms that the standard for proving “sufficient cause” is uniform and that negligence and inaction will not be excused, regardless of who the litigant is.

[1] Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs. Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) 

Judgment Dated: September 12, 2025