07 June 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) recently faced a setback when its revision petition challenging an order dated April 9, 2021, was dismissed by the court. The reason for the dismissal? A delay of 512 days in filing the petition.

The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and offered leniency for the delay incurred during that period. However, the major concern was the remaining delay of 95 days after the exemption period had ended.

The DDA attempted to justify this delay by citing reasons like needing a certified copy of the order (which they were apparently unaware of earlier) and a change in lawyers handling the case.

The court was not convinced by the DDA's explanation. It pointed out that the DDA, being a well-established public department, should have been familiar with legal procedures and the requirement of certified copies. Additionally, a change in lawyers was deemed an internal matter and not a sufficient reason for such a significant delay.

The court emphasized the importance of limitation periods in legal proceedings. These periods ensure cases are presented within a reasonable timeframe, and simply ignoring them cannot be tolerated. The DDA, despite being granted leniency for the COVID-19 period, failed to provide a credible explanation for the remaining delay. This lack of sufficient cause ultimately led to the dismissal of their revision petition.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to limitation periods in legal matters. Even for established organizations like the DDA, failing to present a convincing explanation for delays can have serious consequences.