Government appeals High Court order after delay:Supreme Court dismisses plea, saying the 4-year delay was condoned and cannot be penalised

The Supreme Court has strongly objected to an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which condoned a delay of 1,612 days (about 4.5 years) in a civil appeal filed by the state government without recording any solid reason. The apex court questioned whether the High Court was aware of the Supreme Court’s old and established decisions related to delay condonation. This case involves a civil dispute related to land/ownership. The state government had filed a second appeal against an old High Court decision in this dispute after a significant delay. This was a delay of about four and a half years. The High Court condoned the delay on September 1, but the order did not clarify what was the sufficient reason for such a long delay. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and P.B. Varale’s bench, in its order dated December 5, stated – “We are surprised to see that the High Court condoned a delay of 1612 days merely upon request. The order did not even state why and how the delay occurred. 1. Central Government vs. Jahangir Bairamji In this case, the central government had filed an appeal with a delay of more than 12 years. The Supreme Court had clearly stated that no matter how long the delay, it is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for every day of delay. Merely stating that there was a delay in government files is not a sufficient reason. 2. Shivamma v. Karnataka housing board, order overturned Here, in a land dispute, an appeal was filed with a delay of about 11 years (3966 days). The High Court had condoned the delay, but the Supreme Court, overturning the order, stated that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is necessary to provide a solid and logical reason for the entire period of delay. Long delays cannot be condoned on the basis of sympathy. No mention of Covid in the order During the hearing, it was stated on behalf of the government that the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Supreme Court clarified that there was no mention of COVID in the High Court’s order. A reason given later cannot justify the order. Following this, the Supreme Court, while quashing the High Court’s order, sent the matter back to the High Court and directed that a new decision be made according to law after hearing all parties.