Conditions and circumstances under which an appeal or application may be admitted by the court, even after the expiry of period of limitation. Limitation Act1963

 Those conditions and circumstances under which an appeal or application may be admitted by the court, even after the expiry of period of limitation.

Answer:- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of Delay

Introduction:-

The law of limitation fixes a time period for filing appeals and applications. If they are not filed within that period, they are generally dismissed. But to avoid injustice, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that appeals and applications may be admitted after the expiry of limitation if the party shows “sufficient cause” for the delay.

Scope and Applicability

1. Section 5 applies only to appeals and applications.

2. It does not apply to suits or applications under Order XXI CPC (execution matters).

3. The delay can be excused only when the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause.

4. The discretion lies entirely with the court.

Meaning of “Sufficient Cause”

The term “sufficient cause” is not defined. Courts have explained that:-

It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party.

It should be genuine, reasonable and not due to negligence.

Each case depends upon its own facts.

Mrs. Tarwanti v. State of Haryana (AIR 1995 P&H 32): Sufficient cause means such reason for delay which is beyond the control of the party.

Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation, Mumbai (AIR 2012 SC 1629): Courts should take a liberal view and construe sufficient cause in a justice-oriented manner.

Important Principles

The Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) laid down important principles:-

Refusing condonation may result in injustice.

When substantial justice and technical rules clash, justice must prevail.

A liberal approach is to be adopted.

There is no presumption that delay is deliberate.

In Chief Post Master General v. Living Media (AIR 2012 SC 1506), the Court cautioned that the liberal approach has limits. The delay of 427 days was not condoned because no reasonable explanation was given.

In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222), the Court held that length of delay is not important. Even long delay can be condoned if explanation is satisfactory.

In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752, delay on account of government red-tapism was condoned, stressing that courts should adopt a pragmatic approach.

Circumstances Considered as Sufficient Cause:-

1. Illness

Illness of the party is sufficient cause. (Manju Bala v. Pradosh Ranjan, AIR 1971 Assam 97)

But illness of a lawyer’s family member is not sufficient. (Radheshwar v. Rukmini, 1942 NLJ 311)

2. Imprisonment

If the party was in prison and unable to act, delay can be excused. (Maharaj Narayan v. Banaji, 1904 PR 21)

3. Error and Mistake in Good Faith

Error in preparing certified copy, not signing vakalatnama, or wrong diary entry by clerk.

Wrong advice by advocate or filing in wrong court can be sufficient cause. (Matadeen v. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Director Sewa Samaj v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 Ker 184)

4. Illiterate or Pardanashin Women

Delay caused due to illiteracy or inability to understand legal proceedings has been excused. (Mrs. Ballawa v. Mrs. Shantawa, AIR 1997 SC 35)

5. Wrong Action in Good Faith

Filing a revision instead of appeal in good faith. (M. Doreyya v. Baleshwar Swami, AIR 1966 AP 259)

6. Short Delay with Reasonable Explanation

Delay of 3 days explained by visit to sick relative was excused. (Amar Singh Singhi v. Devi Kumari Pradhan, AIR 2005 NOC 210 Sikkim)

7. Governmental Delay

Delay caused due to bureaucratic procedure has sometimes been condoned. (State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, 2005 SC)

Circumstances Not Considered Sufficient Cause

1. Ignorance of Law

Ignorance of legal provisions is no excuse. (Pokarmal v. Sagarmal, AIR 1972 Cal 430)

2. Poverty

Delay due to poverty alone is not sufficient. (Balwant v. Jagjeet, AIR 1947 Lahore 210)

3. Negligence in Paying Court Fees

Delay in arranging judicial fees held inexcusable. (Swaroop Singh v. Ratan Singh, AIR 2016 P&H 36)

4. Gross Negligence

Delay not condoned when party remained inactive. (Naresh Mohan v. Urmila Devi, AIR 2005 Delhi 225)

Role of Court and Discretion:-

The court has full discretion whether to condone delay or not.

The discretion must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily.

Delay can be condoned on conditions, for example by imposing costs. (Pandian v. Aruna Amma, AIR 2019 NOC 74 Madras)

Landmark Cases:- 

1. Collector v. Katiji (1987 SC): Laid down liberal interpretation principles.

2. N. Balakrishnan v. Krishnamurthy (1998 SC): Length of delay immaterial; explanation is key.

3. State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005 SC): Governmental red-tapism recognized; pragmatic approach urged.

4. Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation (2012 SC): Liberal view emphasized; sufficient cause elastic.

5. Chief Post Master General v. Living Media (2012 SC): Liberal view not unlimited; negligence not condonable.

6. Santosh Kumar Agnihotri v. Sundari Devi (AIR 2005 NOC 23 All): Courts must ensure good grounds exist before condonation.

7. Pandian v. Aruna Amma (AIR 2019 NOC 74 Madras): Delay may be condoned subject to costs to compensate opposite party.

Conclusion:- 

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an exception to the strict law of limitation. It gives courts power to condone delay in filing appeals or applications when sufficient cause is shown. The term “sufficient cause” has been interpreted liberally in many cases like Collector v. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan, but courts also maintain that negligence, ignorance of law, or lack of bona fides cannot be excused. Thus, Section 5 protects genuine litigants while ensuring that finality of litigation is not unnecessarily disturbed.

~ Aryavart Law Hub (www.aryavartlawhub.in)