Case at a glance: The Sikkim High Court has condoned a 223-day delay by National Insurance Company in filing a civil revision, but imposed Rs 50,000 costs after the insurer withdrew its original claim that its trial-court counsel had been ill. The Court called blaming counsel “incorrect and not appreciated” and found the explanation reflected lethargy, yet preferred deciding the case on merits.
The insurer sought condonation of a 223-day delay in filing a revision against a trial court order of 30 August 2025. It said certified copies arrived only in December 2025, and that its officers were on Special Intensive Revision duty in West Bengal, delaying verification and signing of the draft.
Its original application also blamed its trial-court counsel, saying he was ill. A later affidavit of 23 September 2026 withdrew that claim, admitted he had not been ill, and recorded that the company had apologised to him by email.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should delay be condoned where the applicant's explanation was partly false and showed lethargy?
Justice-Oriented Approach, With Costs
The Court found the Special Intensive Revision explanation lacked material particulars: it “could be true. It may not be true as well.” It held that the earlier application rested on false pleas, that blaming counsel was a serious matter and “incorrect and not appreciated”, and that litigants should approach courts in time. It found the explanation “reflects lethargy and failure on the part of the applicant.”
At the same time it said “a justice oriented approach is required” and “it is always better to decide the case on merits than to defeat its purpose by not condoning the delay.” Treating the false plea as an error of judgment in drafting, it condoned the delay subject to costs.
What the Court Actually Held
- The application was allowed and the 223-day delay condoned.
- The revision will be heard on merits.
- Costs of Rs 50,000 are to be paid within two weeks to the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority for the rehabilitation of POCSO victims.
- A compliance affidavit is to be filed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows courts will not accept unfounded blame on counsel.
- It applies the liberal approach to Section 5 while imposing deterrent costs.
- It directs costs to victim rehabilitation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Litigants
- Give specific, verifiable reasons for delay.
- Do not blame counsel without basis; it may be withdrawn at a cost.
For Counsel
- Verify every factual assertion in a delay application before filing.
Key Takeaways
- The delay was condoned in the interest of justice.
- False pleas blaming counsel were criticised.
- The explanation reflected lethargy.
- Rs 50,000 costs were imposed.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court preferred a decision on merits and treated the false plea as an error of judgment in drafting, imposing costs.
To the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority for rehabilitating POCSO victims.
No precedents are cited in the order text.
Conclusion
The order balances the policy of deciding cases on merits with accountability for careless or untrue pleadings.
Practical takeaway: A delay application must be truthful and particular; courts may condone delay but make the applicant pay for its lapses.