ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a bona fide, reasonable and satisfactory explanation; vague or casual explanations reflecting negligence or lack of diligence do not constitute “sufficient cause”. Judicial discretion to condone delay, though liberal in approach, is not unfettered and cannot be exercised where the conduct of the litigant or counsel discloses a cavalier attitude towards the Court. Dismissal of a delay-condonation application necessarily entails dismissal of the appeal itself as time-barred. Imposition of costs, including enforceable directions, is justified where frivolous or irresponsible delay petitions are filed.

Friday, January 9, 2026

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a bona fide, reasonable and satisfactory explanation; vague or casual explanations reflecting negligence or lack of diligence do not constitute “sufficient cause”. Judicial discretion to condone delay, though liberal in approach, is not unfettered and cannot be exercised where the conduct of the litigant or counsel discloses a cavalier attitude towards the Court. Dismissal of a delay-condonation application necessarily entails dismissal of the appeal itself as time-barred. Imposition of costs, including enforceable directions, is justified where frivolous or irresponsible delay petitions are filed.

advocatemmmohan

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5

Condonation of delay – “Sufficient cause” – Scope

Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion. Delay cannot be condoned in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory and bona fide explanation. A casual, vague or cavalier explanation reflects lack of due diligence and disentitles the applicant to discretionary relief.
(Paras 3–5)

Second Appeal – Limitation – Delay in filing

Where the affidavit seeking condonation discloses no valid cause and reflects negligence on the part of the litigant and counsel, delay of even short duration is not liable to be condoned.
(Paras 3–5)

Judicial discretion – Exercise

Discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. Liberal approach does not mean unfettered or arbitrary exercise of discretion, particularly where lack of bona fides is evident.
(Paras 3–5)

Advocate and litigant – Duty to Court

Cavalier attitude of the litigant and advocate towards judicial proceedings constitutes a relevant factor while considering an application for condonation of delay.
(Para 4)

Costs – Imposition – Deterrent measure

Where an application for condonation of delay is found to be frivolous and lacking bona fides, imposition of costs payable to the District Legal Services Authority is justified.
(Para 5)

Civil prison – Default in payment of costs

Direction for civil imprisonment on failure to comply with payment of costs imposed by the Court is permissible to enforce judicial orders.
(Para 5)

Second Appeal – Consequence of dismissal of delay petition

Dismissal of the application for condonation of delay necessarily results in dismissal of the second appeal itself.
(Para 6)

ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)

1. Nature of Proceedings

The appellant sought condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the second appeal against concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The delay petition was supported by an affidavit assigning reasons relating to alleged lack of knowledge and opinion of counsel.
(Paras 1–2)

2. Governing Principles on Condonation of Delay

The Court undertook an examination of settled principles governing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, reiterating that:

discretion must be exercised judiciously,
delay cannot be condoned where there is negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides,
“sufficient cause” must be real, reasonable and convincing.
The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents summarising these principles.
(Para 3)

3. Evaluation of Explanation Offered

On scrutiny of the affidavit, the Court found that:

no cogent or acceptable reason was assigned for the delay,
the explanation was vague and self-contradictory,
the affidavit reflected a casual and irresponsible approach of both litigant and counsel.
(Paras 4–5)

4. Refusal to Condone Delay

The Court held that the explanation failed to satisfy the test of “sufficient cause” and declined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant.
(Para 5)

5. Imposition of Costs and Enforcement

Considering the cavalier attitude, the Court imposed costs of ₹3,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority and issued consequential directions for recovery, including civil imprisonment in case of default.
(Para 5)

6. Effect on Second Appeal

Since the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the second appeal itself was dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Para 6)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a bona fide, reasonable and satisfactory explanation; vague or casual explanations reflecting negligence or lack of diligence do not constitute “sufficient cause”.
Judicial discretion to condone delay, though liberal in approach, is not unfettered and cannot be exercised where the conduct of the litigant or counsel discloses a cavalier attitude towards the Court.
Dismissal of a delay-condonation application necessarily entails dismissal of the appeal itself as time-barred.
Imposition of costs, including enforceable directions, is justified where frivolous or irresponsible delay petitions are filed.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN