Union of India & Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR
Background
The Union of India had taken a property in Pune on lease in 1951, but after an alleged breach of lease terms, the landlord (respondent) obtained a decree for possession, arrears, and mesne profits in 1987, which was upheld by the District Judge in 1992. The Union of India then challenged this before the Bombay High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227), but that writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2006. The Union did not seek restoration of the case until years later, filing an application in 2019 seeking condonation of a delay of about 12 years and 158 days, which the High Court refused.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reviewed established principles on condonation of delay, including that delay applications must be drafted with genuine, careful explanation rather than treated casually on the assumption that courts will always excuse them in the interest of deciding cases on merits; that no fixed formula governs judicial discretion here, but consistency should be sought; and that even government/public bodies, while entitled to some latitude, cannot escape scrutiny of gross, unexplained delay. Applying these principles, the Court found the Union of India had not shown reasonable diligence in pursuing the matter for over 12 years and upheld the High Court's refusal to condone the delay, holding that rendering substantial justice must not come at the cost of prejudicing the opposite party who has waited just as long. The appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Even government bodies do not get a free pass for prolonged, unexplained delay in pursuing legal remedies: condonation of delay is meant to serve justice, not to reward lack of diligence, however sympathetic the underlying claim.