The Allahabad High Court in Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another stressed on the fact that rules of limitation are not to destroy the rights of the parties but rather they ensure that parties do not sleep over their rights. The remedy must be sought promptly.
The Court dismissed a revision application having a delay of 756 days. It also emphasised that legal remedy works on one’s promptness to avail the same. In this regard, it observed that:
“The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. An unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is for providing limitation is founded on public policy”.
The Court also reiterated that while deciding on an application seeking condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, certain guiding principles should be kept in mind so as to avoid grave injustice to the stakeholders. It be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, another party matures his rights on the subject with the attainment of finality. It further observed in its judgment that
“If the explanation does not smack of lack of bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the suiter, but, when there is apparent casual approach on the part of suiter, the approach of Court is also bound to change. A lapse on the part of the litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but total inaction for a long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of the suiter, would add to his negligence and would be a relevant factor going against him.”