Discretionary Condonation of Delay Based on Bona Fide Pursuit of Remedy and Substantial Justice Protected Under Article 227.

The Petitioner (Developer) issued an allotment letter to the Respondents (Complainants) for a flat in 2015.

After the Respondents paid Rs. 45,15,844/-, the Petitioner terminated the allotment on 28 January 2016 and forfeited the amount due to alleged non-payment of balance consideration.

The Respondents filed a complaint before the State Commission on 13 August 2018, which was returned on 16 April 2019 for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, with a direction to file before the District Commission within one month.

However, the Respondents filed a fresh complaint before the District Commission only on 22 July 2022.

The District Commission and later the State Commission (in revision) condoned the delay, prompting the Petitioner to file this Writ Petition.

1. Whether the delay in filing the complaint before the District Commission after its return by the State Commission was supported by "sufficient cause" warranting condonation.

2. Whether the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent litigating before the wrong forum.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the exclusion of time for bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction.

Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Department, which outlines the five conditions for Section 14 to apply.

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction to advance substantive justice and that superior courts should be loath to interfere with a lower court's positive exercise of discretion.

State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, noting that technicalities should not overshadow substantial justice.

Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding the necessity of a rational explanation for delay.

The court found that the Respondents satisfied the criteria for Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as they had diligently pursued the case in a forum they believed had jurisdiction.

Regarding the specific delay between 2019 and 2022, the court accepted the Respondents' explanation that the delay was not deliberate but was caused by difficulties in retrieving the original case file and court fee refund from the State Commission—a claim supported by RTI documents dated 2022.

The court also took judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court’s suo motu orders suspending limitation from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022.

Given that Complainant No. 1 was a senior citizen who subsequently passed away after being infected with COVID-19, the court held that the District Commission's exercise of discretion to condone the delay was rational and not perverse.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the orders of the District and State Commissions condoning the delay; Rule discharged with costs.