Introduction-
The Limitation Act, 1963 provides a time period for filing appeals and applications in courts. If they are not filed within the prescribed time, they are generally dismissed. However, to avoid injustice, Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers courts to admit an appeal or application even after the expiry of limitation, if “sufficient cause” for the delay is shown.
Scope and Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act:-
👉Section 5 applies only to appeals and applications.
👉It does not apply to suits or execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC.
👉Delay can be excused only if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause.
👉The discretion lies with the court and must be exercised judicially.
Meaning of “Sufficient Cause”
The term “sufficient cause” is not defined in the Act. Courts have interpreted it as:
-A cause beyond the control of the party.
-Genuine and reasonable, not due to negligence.
-To be judged based on facts of each case.
📌 Case Reference:
Mrs. Tarwanti v. State of Haryana (1995) – sufficient cause means a reason beyond the party’s control.
Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation, Mumbai (2012) – sufficient cause must be construed in a justice-oriented manner.
Important Principles Laid Down by Courts
Refusing condonation may result in injustice.
When substantial justice and technical rules clash, justice must prevail.
A liberal approach is preferred, but negligence cannot be excused.
Length of delay is immaterial; what matters is the explanation.
📌 Key Cases:
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) – courts should adopt a liberal approach.
Chief Post Master General v. Living Media (2012) – liberal view is not unlimited; negligence not condoned.
N. Balakrishnan v. Krishnamurthy (1998) – even long delay may be condoned if justified.
Circumstances Considered as “Sufficient Cause”
1. Illness of the party – accepted (e.g., Manju Bala v. Pradosh Ranjan, 1971).
2. Imprisonment of the party – delay excused (Maharaj Narayan v. Banaji, 1904).
3. Error/Mistake in Good Faith – wrong advice by advocate or filing in wrong court (Matadeen v. Narayanan, 1970).
4. Illiterate or Pardanashin Women – delay excused (Mrs. Ballawa v. Mrs. Shantawa, 1997).
5. Short delay with explanation – small delays often excused.
6. Governmental delay due to red-tapism – sometimes condoned (State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, 2005).
Circumstances NOT Considered as “Sufficient Cause”
1. Ignorance of law (Pokarmal v. Sagarmal, 1972).
2. Poverty alone (Balwant v. Jagjeet, 1947).
3. Negligence in paying court fees (Swaroop Singh v. Ratan Singh, 2016).
4. Gross negligence or inactivity (Naresh Mohan v. Urmila Devi, 2005).
Role of the Court in Condonation of Delay
Court has discretionary power.
Discretion must be judicial, not arbitrary.
Court may condone delay by imposing costs on the defaulting party (Pandian v. Aruna Amma, 2019).
Landmark Judgments on Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963:-
1. Collector v. Katiji (1987) – liberal interpretation.
2. N. Balakrishnan v. Krishnamurthy (1998) – length of delay immaterial.
3. State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) – red-tapism considered.
4. Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation (2012) – justice-oriented interpretation.
5. Chief Post Master General v. Living Media (2012) – negligence not condoned.
Conclusion:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 acts as an exception to the strict law of limitation. It ensures that genuine litigants are not deprived of justice due to unavoidable delays. Courts generally adopt a liberal approach, as seen in cases like Katiji and Balakrishnan, but they also warn against misuse. Negligence, ignorance of law, or lack of good faith are not excused.
~ Aryavart Law Hub (www.aryavartlawhub.in)
No comments:
Post a Comment