Courts must adopt a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condoning delay to secure adjudication on merits.

Jotindra Infrastructure Limited preferred an appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against the order dated 25.03.2026 of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which dismissed its appeal after refusing to condone a delay of 516 days.

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged orders dated 03.05.2023 and 13.05.2024 passed by the Authority constituted under the 2016 Act and was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

The appellant contended that sufficient cause existed and that the Appellate Tribunal had not considered the reasons advanced for the delay.

Respondent No. 1 opposed condonation, alleging intentional delay, but stated that if the delay were condoned, the appellant should be subjected to costs.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the appellant’s 516-day delay and dismissing the appeal without adequately considering the reasons advanced for the delay?

Whether, in the interests of substantial justice, the delay ought to be condoned so that the appeal could be adjudicated on merits, subject to appropriate costs?

The Court applied Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, under which an appeal lies to the High Court from an order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

It reiterated the settled principle that applications for condonation of delay should not be approached pedantically; courts should adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented, liberal and holistic approach, particularly where adjudication on merits is possible.

Relying on Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Court held that limitation-related discretion should ordinarily be exercised to advance substantial justice and that a technical approach should not defeat adjudication on merits.

The Court also relied on the broader principle that delay may be balanced through appropriate conditions, including costs or denial of consequential benefits for the period of delay.

The High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had refused to condone the 516-day delay and dismissed the appeal, while the appellant specifically contended that the reasons for delay had not been discussed or properly considered.

Applying the liberal and justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay, the Court held that the matter should preferably be decided on merits rather than rejected on a technical ground.

Although the respondent alleged intentional delay, the Court balanced that prejudice by imposing costs of ₹75,000 on the appellant.

It therefore set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Appellate Tribunal was directed to decide the appellant’s appeal on merits.

The appellant was ordered to pay ₹75,000 as costs to respondent No. 1; ₹50,000 was handed over by draft in Court and the remaining ₹25,000 was undertaken to be paid within two weeks.

The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 05.10.2026, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.