Extension of time for payment of costs to condone delay must be granted to avoid frustrating substantive justice.

The petitioner filed a delay condonation application (CMA No. 56 of 2024) before the Additional District Court, Bharuch, alongside a statutory first appeal.

On 29.10.2025, the Appellate Court allowed the application, condoning the delay subject to the petitioner depositing costs of ₹10,000 with the State Government within 15 days.

The petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time due to alleged miscommunication between him and his lawyer.

The petitioner subsequently moved an extension application before the District Court, but the court refused to accept or record it.

Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking extension of time to deposit the costs and a direction to register the appeal.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to extend the time for compliance with a conditional order for delay condonation when the lower court has refused to entertain an extension request.

2. Whether the original order was sufficiently clear regarding the mode and authority for depositing costs "with the State Government."

The Court primarily exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to oversee subordinate courts and ensure justice is not miscarried through technicalities.

The court applied the principle that judicial procedures should facilitate, not frustrate, the cause of justice, suggesting that courts should avoid a "hyper-technical approach" in matters of procedure.

It further relied on the administrative principle that orders imposing costs must specify the exact authority or office where the deposit is to be made to ensure compliance is possible for the litigant.

The Court reasoned that since the Appellate Court had already found merit in condoning the delay, the petitioner's right to pursue a statutory appeal should not be extinguished merely by a procedural default in paying costs.

The Court noted that the petitioner demonstrated bona fide intent by attempting to file an extension application before the Lower Court.

Critically, the Court observed that the original order was vague, directing costs to be paid to the "State Government" without identifying a specific head of account or authority, making compliance difficult.

The Court emphasized that the role of the judiciary is to dispense justice on merits rather than dismissing causes on technical defaults, especially when the costs were not even payable to the respondents but to the state.

The Court modified the original direction, ordering the petitioner to deposit ₹10,000 with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Bharuch, on or before 14.08.2026.

Upon production of the receipt, the Appellate Court is directed to register and decide the appeal on its merits.

Permission was granted to the respondents to seek recall of this order if aggrieved, provided they do so before the petitioner deposits the costs.