Syllabus Revision Program by Islami Jamiat Talba,

For Batch 19-24,

Punjab University Law College.

Subject: Equity (LL.B Part IV)

MAXIMS OF EQUITY

1 (MAXIM 02): DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY.

1. Inroduction:
Equity always assists those who are active in respect of their rights. It does not
assist those who are careless in respect of their rights. Once the party knows
they have been wronged, they must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights
because delay defeats equity. The maxim means that a party who delays in
enforcing rights will not be able to seek equitable relief.
2. Delay defeats Equity:
If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings the case may be
disallowed in equity. This maxim means “Equity aids the vigilant and not the
indolent.” If one sleeps upon his rights, his rights will slip away from him and
therefore this maxim is expressed. If someone has any right, he must come to

Page1|4
Session 2022 - 23
 Court for remedy within stipulated time period as laid down in the law. If he
comes within fixed time period, then his right would be recognized and
enforced. Delay in claim defeats right. There are two types of delays. One is
explainable and other one is not explainable. If the case is referred toward the
concerned authority and they have retained the case, which caused delay, it is
explainable and does not defeat the right.
3. Meaning:
A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.”
which means “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. It means that if a
person is lazy to claim a remedy for the wrong committed against him then
court will refuse to grant him any relief.
4. Doctrine of Laches:
Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from exercising its rights and
obtaining relief from court of law is called laches. Laches is more than mere
delay, and instead implies neglect to do what ought to have been done. Thus,
the maxim means that a party who delays in enforcing rights will not be able to
seek equitable relief.
5. Delay when Fatal:
In the following cases delay is fatal for a party desirous of enforcing his rights;
➢ LOSS OF EVIDENCE:
As a result of delay when the available evidence is lost or destroyed.
➢ WAIVER OF RIGHT:
When the other party is induced to assume or draw an inference from
one’s conduct that one has waived his rights.
➢ RELEASE OF RIGHT:
Delay provides a ground to the other party and leads him to believe that
one has agreed to abandon and release his right
➢ LOSS OF WITNESS:
Loss of witnesses could be occurred in case of death.
6. Circumstances when delay can be ignored by the court:
Following are the circumstance when court can ignore the delay:
➢ When plaintiff was not aware of his right.
➢ When plaintiff was not aware of his legal position.
➢ Plaintiff was minor.
➢ Plaintiff was insane.
➢ Due to any fraud which is caused of delay.
➢ Any natural act which is caused of delay.
➢ Illness which is caused of delay.
➢ Undue influence which is cause of delay.
➢ Preprocess of the case which is caused of delay.
7. Application:
➢ This maxim applies only when a claim is made to equitable relief.

Page2|4
Session 2022 - 23
 ➢ This maxim can be applied only where a right exists and that right is
recognized by law.
➢ This maxim can be applied where wrong has been done and right has
been violated clearly.
➢ This maxim can be applied where law does not provide any relief or for
the breach of right.
8. Limitation:
This maxim does not apply: -
i) Where the law of limitation expressly applies.
ii) Where it applies by analogy.
iii) Where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by
ordinary rules of laches.
9. Position in Pakistan:
The English doctrine of delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in
a court of equity cannot be imported in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act,
1908, which fixes a period of one year (previously three years) within which a
suit for specific performance should be brought. Section 51 of the Transfer of
Property Act embodies this doctrine but with a difference. So, it has no general
application in Pakistan.
10.Conclusion:
To Preclude, it could be said that where a person has negligently slept over his
right, court will refuse to provide him remedy because equity aids the vigilant
not the indolent. However, this maxim has no application when a legal remedy
is available to the party as well as time limitation has also been set for the
enforcement of rights violated.

Prepared by: M Ahmad

Team Head: Haleema Sadia

Project by Islami Jamiat Talaba, Punjab University Law College

BEST OF LUCK … !!

Page3|4
Session 2022 - 23
 Page4|4
Session 2022 - 23