ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Inordinate delay — “Sufficient cause” — Test Held, delay of 6624 days (almost 18 years) in filing appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. The cause shown must inspire confidence and demonstrate diligence; delay cannot be condoned for mere asking or on flimsy grounds. (Paras 4–8, 9–10) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal — Ex parte decree — Conduct of defendants — Effect Held, where defendants were parties to the suit, summons were served, and they consciously chose not to contest the suit resulting in an ex parte decree, absence of explanation either for non-appearance in the suit or for prolonged inaction thereafter disentitles them from discretionary relief of condonation of delay. (Paras 3, 6

Sunday, January 11, 2026

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Inordinate delay — “Sufficient cause” — Test Held, delay of 6624 days (almost 18 years) in filing appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. The cause shown must inspire confidence and demonstrate diligence; delay cannot be condoned for mere asking or on flimsy grounds. (Paras 4–8, 9–10) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal — Ex parte decree — Conduct of defendants — Effect Held, where defendants were parties to the suit, summons were served, and they consciously chose not to contest the suit resulting in an ex parte decree, absence of explanation either for non-appearance in the suit or for prolonged inaction thereafter disentitles them from discretionary relief of condonation of delay. (Paras 3, 6–7)

advocatemmmohan

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Inordinate delay — “Sufficient cause” — Test

Held, delay of 6624 days (almost 18 years) in filing appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. The cause shown must inspire confidence and demonstrate diligence; delay cannot be condoned for mere asking or on flimsy grounds.
(Paras 4–8, 9–10)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal — Ex parte decree — Conduct of defendants — Effect

Held, where defendants were parties to the suit, summons were served, and they consciously chose not to contest the suit resulting in an ex parte decree, absence of explanation either for non-appearance in the suit or for prolonged inaction thereafter disentitles them from discretionary relief of condonation of delay.
(Paras 3, 6–7)

Limitation Act, 1963 — Public policy — Rigour of limitation — Equitable considerations

Held, law of limitation is founded on public policy and has to be applied with full rigour; courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. Hardship or inconvenience is not a ground to condone delay when statute prescribes limitation.
(Paras 8, 31–33)

Appeal — Condonation of delay — Merits of case — Irrelevance

Held, merits of the case are not required to be examined while considering an application for condonation of delay; delay-condonation applications must be decided strictly on parameters governing “sufficient cause”.
(Para 33(vii), 9)

Appeal barred by limitation — Consequence

Held, on rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Paras 10–11)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

The 1st respondent (since deceased) instituted O.S.No.21 of 2006 before the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking:
- allotment of an alternative site of 203 sq. yards, or
- payment of market value thereof, with consequential reliefs.
The suit was decreed on 12-06-2007, directing defendants 1 to 5 (present appellants) to:
- allot a site of 203 sq. yards in Sy.No.52/40, and
- pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and costs.
The defendants remained ex parte and did not contest the suit.
The appellants filed A.S.No.677 of 2025 with a delay of 6624 days.
An application I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of delay.
The affidavit in support of the application relied inter alia on vague explanations, including reference to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ANALYSIS OF LAW

The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reiterated that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and requires demonstration of sufficient cause.
(Paras 7–8)
The Court found:
- the explanation offered was an afterthought,
- the averments did not inspire confidence, and
- no explanation was given either for non-appearance in the suit or for the long silence after decree.
  (Paras 7–8)
The plea based on the COVID-19 pandemic was held untenable, as the decree was passed in 2007, whereas the pandemic occurred in 2020.
(Para 7)
Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that:
- what matters is sufficiency of cause, not length of delay,
- courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds, and
- negligence, lack of diligence, or inaction disentitles a party from relief.
  (Paras 29–33)
The Court further held that merits of the appeal are irrelevant while deciding condonation of delay and cannot be used to dilute statutory limitation.
(Para 33(vii))
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning an inordinate delay of nearly 18 years.

RATIO DECIDENDI

An inordinate delay of several years in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause demonstrating diligence and bona fides.
Where defendants were duly served, chose not to contest the suit, and remain inactive for years thereafter without satisfactory explanation, discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted.
Equitable considerations, hardship, or subsequent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic cannot override the statutory rigour of limitation.
Upon rejection of the delay-condonation application, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation without examining the merits.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN