The COVID-19 pandemic wrought profound changes across numerous spheres of human existence, ushering in an era of unprecedented challenges across various sectors, with the legal realm being no exception. With the incessant spread of the said virus, courts and other fora were forced to shut down, giving a semblance of closed doors to those aggrieved and seemingly deprived of their rights at-law.

Naturally, though unfortunately, what was unaffected at the time was the limitation running unceasingly, subjecting the litigants to feel remediless. With the e-filing procedure - went on to be subsequently introduced - being only in an embryonic stage at the time, it was imperative that the Apex Court of the country took appropriate, expedient measures. Thus, in March 2020, in exercise of its powers under Article 141/142 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court took suo moto cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing pleadings, applications, etc., and directed an extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before the courts and tribunals, including itself, with effect from March 15, 2020 (in SMWP No.3/2020 titled “In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation”). With the passage of time, the said order went on to be withdrawn, restored and even amended with subsequent orders - with the cycling waves of the said virus - when, finally, by means of the order dated January 10, 2022 (“Order”), the period from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022 was excluded by the Apex Court for the purposes of calculating limitation in all proceedings before all courts and fora.

Though, the said Order has been passed more than a year ago, its effect and usage continues to this day, with litigants making most of it in their proceedings before courts and other fora, pan India. One may assume that with the said Order being categorical and unambiguous, the benefit of it must indubitably enure to all, especially as the relaxation of the otherwise stringent limitation laws being its raison d’etre. However, there have been many instances where the benefit of the same has not been granted to litigants. One such recent case, with a moot point germane to this discussion, was before the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL and FS Financial Services Ltd.”, wherein an appeal was preferred before it, impugning the judgment of the High Court, which was passed in a civil suit where the application for placing on record the written statements of the defendants therein was dismissed. The High Court, whilst dismissing the said application(s) of the defendant(s) held that the order dated March 23, 2020 passed by the Apex Court would not enure to the benefit of the said defendants since the limitation period for filing the written statements had expired before March 23, 2020. The High Court further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, and held that since the orders of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India extended only the period of limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condoned, the applications for taking on record the written statements could not be entertained.

The defendants/appellants submitted, at the outset, that much water had flown after the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), insofar as their lordships, whilst passing the judgment in “Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 112”, noticed the orders of March 23, 2020, May 6, 2020 and July 10, 2020, and dealt with the directions in orders of March 8, 2021, April 27, 2021 and September 23, 2021, (all) made in the same “In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation”. The appellants contended that the Apex Court, in Prakash Corporates (supra),whilst noticing the subsequent orders, distinguished the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra). Per contra, the respondents reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the appellants had forfeited their respective rights at-law.

The Apex Court, upon hearing the parties, set about by citing the maxim i.e., “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” - the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights - and commented that it is a fundamental legal maxim on which statutes of limitations are premised. The Court said: when the whole world was in the grip of devastating pandemic, it could never have been said that the parties were sleeping over their rights. Relevantly, the Apex Court accentuated the orders passed by it, contrasting the order of March 23, 2020 with March 8, 2021, which was reiterated in orders of April 27, 2021 and September 22, 2021, and highlighted thereon that the order of March 8, 2021 clearly stated that the period from March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 will stand excluded in computing, inter-alia, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) - outer limit, for example, being a period of 120 days as prescribed in the schedule to the Commercial Courts Act amended Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Apex Court further highlighted its judgment in Prakash Corporates (supra), and stated that it was also noticed in the said judgment that the order of March 8, 2021, and subsequent orders also by a bench of three judges, were not and could not have been available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed (supra) since the latter was decided on September 18, 2020. Therefore, the applications filed by the defendants/appellants were held to be within limitation by the Apex Court, insofar as even after the expiry of 30 days period, the outer limit of 120 days fell within the period which had been excluded by the Apex Court - by way order dated March 8, 2021.

The Apex Court’s decision to uphold the extension of timelines, issued out of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances, underscores the imperatives of adaptability and flexibility within the justice apparatus during times of extraordinary upheavel, making sure that operation of such measures should not be curtailed by the ordinary operation of law. It underscores the pressing necessity to continuously assess and amend laws, thereby guaranteeing that justice remains accessible and timely, even in the face of unprecedented global events.

By - Vaibhav Mehra