Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs A. Vasu on 15 March, 1996
4. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit for lodging the matter late. Where stakes are high, refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. It must be grasped that system is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (See: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Pratapsingh - JT 2000(5) SC 389, Union of India and Ors. v. A. Vasu - (1998)8 SCC 562, State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors. - (1996)3 SCC 132).