Court has stepped in to ensure, substantive rights of private parties and State are not defeated simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon sufficiency of cause shown and degree of acceptability of ‘explanation’, length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable ‘explanation’ being proffered, delay of shortest range may not be condoned. Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as same, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.
It is important to bear in mind, we are not hearing whether to condone or not. We are hearing, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 has not accepted Governmental lethargy, tardiness and indolence. Yet, exercise of discretion by High Court has to be tested on a justice-oriented approach. We do not consider discretion to have been exercised by High Court in an arbitrary manner. It is not liable for interference.
– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Sheoraj Singh v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015].
Mentioned: *Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.
Delhi High Court undertook ‘Zero Pendency Court Project Report’ to collect data and examine meticulously, life cycles of legal cases. ‘Zero Pendency Court Project Report‘ was inspired by a remark of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah (Former CJI) in a conversation with Justice Ravindra Bhat, Member of State Court Management System Committee of Delhi High Court.
PENDING CIVIL CASES
West Bengal: Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malda – Partition Suit No. 30 of 1952 – 04.04.1952; Civil Judge, Senior Division, Medinipur – Other Suit No. 39 of 2017 – 15.09.1953.
Uttar Pradesh: Civil Judge, Junior Division, Varanasi – Original Suit No. 319 of 1953 – 02.07.1953.
PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
Maharashtra: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati – R.C.C. No. 2319 of 1959 – 11.04.1959; CJJD & JMFC, Mehkar – R.C.C. No. 61 of 1960 – 06.10.1959; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati – R.C.C. No. 778 of 1961 – 30.08.1961.
– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar, Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, [Civil Appeal No. 4286 of 2023] decided on 20.10.2023.
