N. Balakrishnan v M. Krishnamurthy

• A suit for declaration of title was decreed ex parte on 28 October 1991. The defendant's application to set aside the decree was dismissed for default on 17 February 1993.
• He applied to restore it only on 19 August 1995, a delay of 883 days. His explanation was that his advocate had not told him of the dismissal and had misled him.
• The trial court accepted the explanation under S.5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The High Court reversed it in revision.

1. Is the length of delay decisive in deciding whether to condone it under S.5?

• "Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion." A short delay may be refused for want of an acceptable explanation, and a long one condoned if the explanation is satisfactory.
• Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties; they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics.
• Once a court accepts the explanation as sufficient, a superior court should not lightly interfere, especially in revision.
• When delay is condoned despite some laches, the court should compensate the opposite party.
• Result: appeals allowed; the trial court's order condoning the delay was restored, on condition that the appellant pay Rs 10,000 to the respondent.

The length of delay is not decisive under S.5 of the Limitation Act; the test is whether the explanation is acceptable, and an order condoning delay on an accepted explanation should not lightly be upset.