Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) I.A. No.4151 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2705 days in preferring this civil miscellaneous petition.
(2.) Heard. It is well settled that while deciding the question of limitation what is to be considered is the action of the petitioner. If the act of a party is satisfactorily explained, then the Court can act to exercise its discretion for condonation of delay. In this context it is necessary to state that in plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court the proposition has been settled that Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly and the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit so a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
(3.) In the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, 2010 8 SCC 685 in para-26 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under: "26 The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.";