Maxim: 7. Delay defeats equity. (Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.)

• This maxim “Delay defeats equity” elaborates that unreasonable delay prevents the plaintiff from obtaining an equitable remedy.
• To understand the maxim, the difference in the bar of legal and equitable claims must be understood.
• Legal claims are barred by statute of limitation. These claims are not barred by any lapse of time shorter than the Statute of limitation.
• Equitable claims are barred by limitation law plus by unreasonable delay without reasonable circumstance.

The doctrine of Laches:

The doctrine is also commonly referred to as estoppel by laches.

It states that the delay was unreasonable on the part of the plaintiff. If the delay on the plaintiff’s part can be satisfactorily explained by some reason like lack of information, the delay may be excused. So, the court can deny relief to a plaintiff when he is filing a suit with reasonable delay and without reasonable circumstances which can satisfy the court regarding the delay of the suit.

Application:

This maxim is applicable where:

1. Relief is purely equitable.
2. Any alternative or corresponding remedy is not available.
3. The statute of limitation is not applicable to the claim.
4. The doctrine of Laches is not applicable.

Claims outside the Statute:

Despite the enlarged scope of the Limitation Act of 1939, there are many equitable claims to which these principles apply. They include a claim to redeem a mortgage of pure personality, or to foreclose, or to set aside a purchase of trust property by a trustee of it. Delay may also bar claims for equitable remedies such as specific performance, rescission, rectification, and injunctions, other than final injunctions to which a party is entitled as of right. In such cases, a fatal delay may occur after or before the issue of the writ.

Limitations:

Maxim does not apply to:

Equitable claims to which the Statute of Limitation applies expressly.

Equitable claims to which the Statute of Limitation applies by analogy.

Pakistani Law:

The Limitation Act has provided for all conceivable cases. The residuary Art. 120 is intended to cover cases not expressly provided for. It is only when delay amounts to waiver, abandonment, or acquiescence and has so altered the position of the defendant that it disentitles the plaintiff to a decree for specific performance. Hence though Art. 113 lays down a time limit of three years within which a suit for the specific performance of a contract must be filed, mere delay in suing will not be sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance.

Maxim: 6. He Who Comes to Equity Must Come With Clean Hands.