Condonation of delay under The Limitation Act, 1963

Meaning of Condonation
The term Condonation means that the offence (of ignoring the law of period as prescribed by the
Act) is impliedly disregarded and the matter shall process as if no offence has been committed.

The Doctrine of Condonation of Delay

Condonation of Delay finds its mention in Section 5 of the Act which elaborates upon Extension
of prescribed period in certain cases. According to it, any appeal or application may be admitted
after the prescribed period if the applicant/appellant is able to satisfy the Court that they had
“sufficient cause” for not instituting the appeal/application in the prescribed period.

What is “Sufficient Cause”?

The term “sufficient cause” isn’t defined explicitly and varies on a case-to-case basis. The Court
has a wide discretion in determining what constitutes as sufficient cause, depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.

In cases regarding non-appearance, adjournment or stay of execution of a decree, the cause must
be just and adequate i.e. “sufficient” otherwise these provisions will just be a way of incessantly
prolonging litigation. This principle has been advocated in furtherance of pursuance of justice
but it shouldn’t deny someone of justice either.

In the case of G. Ramagowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was held that “sufficient
cause” is to be interpreted liberally so as to pursue substantial justice.

Type of Jurisdiction
The Court has the discretion to condone the delay and admit the appeal. The Court has
discretionary jurisdiction and even though sufficient cause has been shown, the party is not
entitled to the condonation of delay as the same is left to the Court’s discretion.

Exceptions to Condonation of Delay – Section 5

There are certain exceptions relating to the ambit of the doctrine of condonation of delay
(Section 5):
1. The doctrine is applicable to Criminal Proceedings only.
2. The doctrine does not include “suit” and only covers appeals and applications.
3. Other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The doctrine covers all appeals and applications.

Rule 3A
Rule 3A has been inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976. According to it, an application must
be filed in case an appeal is presented after the expiry of the prescribed period. The application
has to state sufficient cause for causing a delay in filing an appeal. This rule was recommended
by the Privy Council.
The practice of admitting such appeal subject to an opinion regarding limitation was disapproved
by privy – council, and it stressed the need of adopting a procedure for settling the final
determination of the question as to limitation before admission of appeal.

The Supreme Court, in the case of State of M.P v. Pradeep Kumar, observed two objects of this
rule:
 To inform the appellant filing a time-barred appeal that his action won’t be entertained
unless it is accompanied by an application substantiating sufficient cause.
 To communicate to the appellant that he may not have to be ready as the condonation of
delay is a condition precedent to hearing their appeal.

General Principles under The Limitation Act

The two fundamental principles on which the Limitation Act primarily rests are as follows:
1. Interest republicae ut sit finis lithium: It is for the public good that litigation comes to an
end after a long hierarchy of appeals. Continuing to file further appeals may be
equivalent to opening a floodgate which causes more wrongs than rights.
2. Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subvenitent: Law aids the vigilant and not asleep. Law
will not assist those who are careless of their right. You should file the suit at the right
time, during the limitation period. Law will not respond to carelessness on your part.

General Principles of the Condonation of delay

The Supreme Court, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji prescribed certain
principles which need to be followed while administering the doctrine of condonation of delay:
 Ordinarily, the litigant doesn’t stand to benefit by instituting an appeal late.
 If the Court is refusing to condone the delay, it can result in a meritorious matter being
discarded and the roots of justice being defeated. However, when a delay is condoned,
the highest that can happen is that the case will be decided on merits, i.e. a decision based
on evidence rather than on the technical and procedural ground.
 Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean the doctrine is to be applied in an
irrational manner. It must be applied in a sensible manner and not a literal one.
 Between substantial justice and technical considerations, the former deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot claim that injustice is done because of a bona fide
delay.
 There is no presumption that delay is caused deliberately. The litigant has nothing to gain
by resorting to delay and runs a serious risk.

Instances where condonation can be granted

The following are the instances where condonation can be granted:
 Subsequent changes in the law.
 Illness of the party: It includes the nature and severity of disease and facts encompassing
the failure to act.
 Imprisonment of the party: However, mere detainment is not sufficient to cause. Varies
on a case-to-case basis.
 Party is a pardanashin woman.
 Party belongs to a minority group with insufficient funds.
 Poverty or paupers.
  Party is a government servant: A government servant may not have an incentive in
fulfilling the task. Therefore, a certain latitude is permissible in such a case.
 Delay due to the pendency of the writ petition.
 Party is illiterate.
 Other adequate grounds: Mistake of Court, Mistake of Counsel, Delay in getting copies,
mislead by rulings, etc.

Leading Judgments
 Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurty
By the means of this judgment, the need for a “rule of limitation” was justified. Rule of
limitation hasn’t been incorporated to destroy the right of parties, but to ensure that the parties
don’t resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly. The Law of limitation fixes a life
span for such legal remedy. Unending lifespan would’ve led to unending uncertainty. The Court
held that the law of limitation is thus founded on public policy.

 Ramlal, Motilal & Chotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.

In this case, the Court held that while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, two important
considerations need to be made:
 In case of expiry of prescribed period of prescription, a right in favour of the decree-
holder arises, according to which the decree can be treated as binding between the parties.
 If sufficient cause of delay in filing appeal has been given, it is the Court’s discretion to
condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The fact that the appellant was misled by tools of the High Court in computing the limitation
period is sufficient cause under Section 5 to condone the delay.
Appeal was granted.

 Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari

In this case, the question before the Court was whether the delay in filing appeal should be
condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As laid down in this case, Section 5 of the
Limitation Act gives Court discretion, which has to be exercised in a way in which judicial
power and discretion ought to be exercised upon well-understood principles. The words
“sufficient cause” need to receive a liberal construction. The Bench of three Judges held that
unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the
protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be
refused to be condoned.
The appeal was allowed and the delay was condoned.