Originally published in the Opinion 3 which a collection of papers by the Bar Members of the Punjab and Haryana Bar Association.

The Opinion was released formally on 23.01.2025 in the Bar Room, Punjab and Haryana High Court by Hon’ble Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon’ble Justice Sureshwar Thakur.

By – Satyam Tandon and Nisha Kanojia[1]

Background

Time is frequently a crucial component in the legal field. Legal actions and duties are subject to deadlines, statutes of limitations, and prescribed time period. However, what remedy is available to a person if these limitations are not met? That is where the idea of a “condonation of delay” enters the picture, a mechanism that permits time constraints to be extended under specific conditions.

The term “condonation of delay” refers to the extension of the prescribed time under specific circumstances subject to sufficient cause. In other words, if the applicant or appellant can convince or satisfy the court that he had a good reason for not filing the application or filing the appeal within the prescribed time and if the court determines that the stated justification or reason is sufficient, it may accept the application or appeal after the statute of limitations. It is crucial to understand that the courts have the discretionary power to extend the limitation period only in situations when the delay is due to legitimate and genuine causes. Only courts are responsible for reviewing the facts and explanations presented.

That Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 provides the specific provision for condoning delay. While interpreting this section, it is evident that the intention is to provide flexibility to the system while also acknowledging that unusual circumstances occasionally make it difficult for the parties involved to file their cases on time. And therefore, it becomes crucial to remember that these circumstances should never be used as an excuse to deny anyone justice.

The act of condoning a delay is a protection for the interests of those who have really been wronged, giving them a way to seek justice and prevent their relief from being denied purely on the grounds of procedural delays. However, since the applicant has disregarded the precise parameters of the law, this can only be sought as a matter of discretion rather than as a matter of “right.” In some cases, the court may adopt a liberal stance. A few instances of these circumstances include real adversity, for example, unexpected events, natural disasters, or medical emergencies, technical problems: Using digital filing systems, obtaining the required financial records, later modifications within the law, imprisonment of the party, illiteracy: or illness. But even with such exceptions, ultimately the power rests with the Hon’ble judge in exercising or rejecting to exercise their powers, because ultimately it is a matter of public policy.

“The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation and “Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subveninet”which means that court protect those who are vigilant about their own rights. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.^[2]”

 

Interpretation of phrase “Sufficient Cause”

As interpreted by the Hon’ble Courts, sufficient cause” for condonation of delay in section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the party”^[3]. While this is one such stance, the term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court by stating that it is the cause for which a person could not be blamed for his absence^[4]. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”. In light of the facts and circumstances of a case, “sufficient cause” indicates that the party should not have behaved carelessly, that there is a want of bona fide, or that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. But each case’s particular facts and circumstances must provide enough justification for the relevant court to use its discretion. The petitioner must persuade the court that he was prevented from presenting his argument by any “sufficient cause,” and the court should deny the motion for a delay condonation unless an adequate justification is provided. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.

“Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. In every case of delay, there can be some lapse on part of the litigant concerned – That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him.^[5]”

In this case, the appellant engaged an advocate to help with the motion to set aside an order of trial court. However, his application was rejected for default and the advocate that was recruited neglected to tell him of this order. The appellant inquired then he found out that his advocate had left the case and was working as a legal assistant at MS Maxworth Orcheads India Limited. Following an 833-day delay, the appellant filed an application to have that order set aside before Madras High Court. He also submitted an application detailing his circumstances in order to receive a delay condonation. The revision petition was heard by the Madras High Court, which found that the application’s filing 883 days later than anticipated was not sufficiently explained. As a result, the appellant’s request for a revision was granted by the Madras High Court, subject to the requirement that the appellant reimburse the respondent for ten thousand rupees within a month of this date. However, while analysing given facts of the case The Hon’ble Supreme court had a different view and laid down following propositions regarding sufficient cause and condonation of delay within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act-: –

1. The essential criteria are whether the explanation is acceptable; the length of the delay is irrelevant. In certain situations, a delay of a very great range may be excused if there is a suitable reason, whereas in other situations, a delay of the shortest range may not be acceptable.
2. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
3. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
4. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him.

To summarise the element of “sufficient cause”, it must exist in every case where a person seeks for a remedy—that is, the condonation of a delay. It is essential in making sure that inflexible limitations do not unfairly jeopardise fundamental rights of a person but, the applicant always bears the burden of proof—that is, he must demonstrate that he was not careless and that he had a legitimate cause. However, it is crucial to understand that every situation/case is different, and the court has the discretion to determine whether or not to award a condonation since they are able to fairly evaluate the merits of each explanation. In a nutshell, the court must take into account four crucial factors. i) the explanation for the delay, ii) the sufficiency of the cause shown, iii) the lack of negligence, and the possible prejudice to the other party.

That the sufficient cause has been interpreted differently in different situations as ultimately it all boils down to the facts of the case. In one instance,[6] the Hon’ble court held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. In this case, the appellant requested a certified copy of the award, but it wasn’t received for another four days. The application was denied by the Special Land Acquisition Collector due to its four-day late filing, the same was upheld by the High Court. An appeal was preferred the Supreme Court. The Supreme court dismissed the appeal and stated that statute allowed for a three-month of limitations from the date of the court’s award, which excluded the time needed to obtain a copy of the award. In another case, the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court[7] was of the view that mere technicalities ought not to impede justice and condone delay in filing appeal by accused who were unable to engage private counsel. In this case the issue was that all three of petitioner were detained at the relevant time and they had already received legal aid counsel following their conviction but wanted to hire a private counsel and only the petitioner No. 3’s wife took action in this regard, that they were unable to promptly hire private counsel. The petitioners did not exhibit wilful inaction or egregious negligence, according to the supreme court. Justice should be served, and mere technicalities should not stand in the way of justice. Consequently, the delay is condoned. Many other instances show that a litigant can’t be held responsible for the counsel’s failure to appeal within statutory period of limitation[8]; while on the other hand, the Hon’ble Court held that party claiming that they did not contact their counsel for six years was not allowed to get their delay condoned on the fact that their lawyer did not inform them about disposal[9].

Prescribed limitations across courts and tribunals

1. Punjab & Haryana High Court
2. Letters Patent Appeal: LPA is an appeal to a Division Bench filed against the order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Limitation provided for filing such an appeal is 30 days. Such appeal lies only against order passed in Civil Writ petitions.
3. Regular First Appeals: RFA lies to the high Court against the decree or award executable as decree passed by the District Judge/Addl.Distt. Judge against which appeal is not barred. Regular First Appeals lie against the award passed in Land Acquisition cases; limitation provided is 90 days.
4. Civil Revisions: CR are entertained under Section 115 CPC against those final/interim orders of courts below against which no appeal is provided. The Limitation provided is 90 days. Civil Revisions are also entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under the Rent Acts also civil revisions lie. Under Punjab Act no limitation is provided whereas under Haryana Act limitation is 90 days 
5. First Appeal Order: FAO is entertained against those orders (which do not fall within the definition of decree) passed by the Courts below against which an appeal is provided direct to the High Court. The limitation provided under the Act for filing of FAOs against the orders of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, under the Hindu Marriage Act or Arbitration and Conciliation Act is 90 days whereas under the Workmen Compensation Act is 60 days 
6. Regular Second Appeal: RSA is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in a suit. It is filed under section 100 CPC on a substantial question of law (to be formulated in the grounds of appeal). Limitation provided is 90 days 
7. Criminal Appeal/Criminal Revision/criminal miscellaneous applications: For filing of criminal appeal, the limitation is 60 days; criminal revision is 90 days and there is no limitation provided for filing criminal Misc. applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but such applications should be filed within a reasonable time and are entertained by the Court in view of the legal principles applicable.
8. Consumer Forum:
9. Limitation Period: – Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act,2019 provides a Limitation period for The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall admit a complaint filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
10. Appeal to State Commission: – Section 41 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 45 day from the date such order is passed.
11. Appeal to National Commission: -Section 51 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
12. Appeal against order of National Commission: – Section 67 provides that any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
13. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab: –
14. Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides that any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent. No Limitation is prescribed by the Act.
15. Section 44 of the Act provides that an appeal can be preferred if any person is aggrieved by any order of the Authority or the adjudicating officer before appellate tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date on which a copy of the direction or order or decision made by the Authority, or the adjudicating officer is received.
16. Debt Recovery Tribunal: –
17. Section 17 of SARFAESI Act,2002 provides for limitation period of 45 days
18. Section 18 of SARFAESI Act,2002 provides an Appeal to Appellate Tribunal if any person is aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal can sort for an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.
19. Section 181 (1) the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 An appeal from an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under this Code shall be filed within 30 days before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal extension not exceeding fifteen days.

Section 182. (1) of the act states An appeal from an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall be made within 45 days before the Supreme Court.

• NCLT
• The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has a 3-year limitation period for applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from the date of default. 
• Section 61(1)1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides for the statutory right to appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority — NCLT before the NCLAT. Limitation period of 30 days, which is extendable for a further 15 days, provided there is a sufficient cause for the delay

Section 62 (1) of the act provides an appeal to Supreme court if any person aggrieved by an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal within 45 days

Conclusion

In a recent case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the eight principles for delay of condonation[10]. The eight principles are listed below: –

1. The purpose of the statute of limitations is to put a stop to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself.
2. After a certain amount of time, a remedy or right that has not been used or exercised in a long time must expire or cease to exist.
3. The Limitation Act’s provisions must be interpreted differently; for example, Section 3 must be interpreted strictly, while Section 5 must be interpreted flexibly.
4. Though liberal approaches, justice-oriented approaches, or causes of substantial justice may be kept in mind in order to achieve substantial justice, they cannot be utilized to override the substantive law of limitations found in Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
5. Although courts have the authority to grant a condonation of delay if a valid reason for the delay has been provided, this power is discretionary and may not be used for a variety of reasons, including excessive delay, negligence, or a failure to exercise due diligence.
6. If the court is not pleased with the explanation provided for the appeal’s delay, just because some people received relief in comparable cases does not entitle others to the same advantage.
7.  The case’s merits do not have to be taken into account to excuse the delay.
8. An application for a delay condonation must be considered in accordance with the guidelines, and it cannot be granted simply because restrictions have been placed on the application, which would be a violation of the relevant statute.

In the abovementioned case, against a delay of 5659 days, the ground taken by the appellant was that she was unaware of the reference filed since she was residing in her matrimonial home. However, against this the Hon’ble Court held that (i) the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing the proposed appeal; (ii) that most of the claimants have accepted the decision of the reference court; and (iii) in the event the petitioners have not been substituted and made party to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did. Thus, there is apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter. The Supreme Court’s explanation of striking a balance between procedural rigidity and justice is excellent. While the court acknowledged that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be interpreted flexibly, it also noted that Section 3 of the Act, as an obligatory substantive legislation, must be treated strictly. The use of the word “may” indicate that the court has the discretion to determine whether or not to accept the application. Furthermore, section 3’s usage of the term “shall” implies that, subject to the exclusions, the dismissal is mandatory. That adherence of statutory time limits provide efficiency and predictability in court procedures; but undue strictness can result in injustices when valid delays are present. The judges have a duty cast on themselves to protect basic rights while maintaining the rule of law by taking into account the particulars of each case as well as the larger consequences on the administration of justice and therefore, their objective is to find a fine balance between the pursuit of justice and procedural strictures.

---

[1] Advocates at the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

^[2] Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Versus The Special Deputy Collector (LA) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018. D/d. 08.04.2024

^[3] State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 (SC); Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT.

^[4] Basawaraj and Ors. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746.

^[5] N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222

[6] Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765

[7] Crl.Rev.P. No. 4 of 2024. D/d. 25.06.2024. Bidhan Trikhatri and Others Versus State of Sikkim Sikkim High Court

[8] Rani Rewati Devi Ravi Pratap Nyas And Another vs. Administrator General Uttar Pradesh And 22 Others 2024 Special Appeal Defective No. 115 of 2024. D/d. 03.07.2024

[9] Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 Special Appeal Defective No. – 355 of 2024. D/d. 25.04.2024

[10] Supra note 2