Case Title: Malhan And 17 Others V. State Of U.P. And Another
The Allahabad High Court observed that Advocates should refrain from suggesting misleading legal possibilities to their clients to pursue the matter in appeal/revision/review when the probabilities of the outcome are highly negative. No case should be pursued ‘just to take a chance’. This places an unnecessary burden on the already the packed judicial system.
In the instant case, a review petition was filed after a delay of 6 years i.e. 1900 days. The reason for the delay was stated that review application couldn’t be filed within time due to the blockage of public transportation on account of COVID-19 guidelines.
The Court disregarding this reason for delay observed that, “the appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court in the year 2016 and the pandemic struck India only in 2020-2021. The delay in filing the review application is absolutely deliberate. There is no reason why the appellants, who are sixteen in number, waited for six long years.”
While hearing the application for condonation delay, the Court reiterated the interpretation of the expression 'sufficient cause’. It said that, “The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay.”
The Court also referred to the decision in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala wherein it was held, "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."