Delhi High Court recently in Union of India v. Jay Shree Metals & Engg. Co. 2024:DHC:4970 emphasized that even if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay in agitating the matter cannot be given a go-by. DHC relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Bherulal: (2020) 10 SCC 654 wherein it was held as under:
“5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.”
DHC further held that what really matters is the acceptability of the explanation given for delay, and that the length of delay is not material. The reliance is placed on N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy: (1998) 7 SCC 123 where SC held as under:
“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 want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of 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 reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.”