condonation of delay

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 lets a court admit an appeal or application (other than an application under Order XXI CPC) after the prescribed period if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not filing in time. It does not apply to suits, which are dismissed if out of time.

“Sufficient cause” is read liberally to advance substantial justice. The applicant must explain the delay, but not with pedantic proof of every day; a meritorious case should not be thrown out for a technical lapse. The State gets no special treatment, though courts allow for the way government files move. Special laws may exclude s.5 or fix an outer limit, as s.34(3) of the Arbitration Act does.

Example

The appellant explained that he was hospitalised for the entire period, which is sufficient cause, so the court allowed condonation of delay under section 5.

In Indian law

• Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 (extension of prescribed period in certain cases)
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 INSC 54: liberal approach to sufficient cause
• Section 34(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (outer limit for setting aside an award)

See also

limitation · vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt · appeal

Read more in the study notes

• Corruption, maladministration and the ombudsman: Lokpal and Lokayukta (Administrative Law)
• Principal steps in arbitration and interim measures (Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems)
• The Mediation Act, 2023: scheme, enforcement and status (Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems)
• Holder and holder in due course, parties to instruments, their liability and payment in due course (Banking Law)
• Penal provisions for dishonour of cheques (ss.138-148) and the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (Banking Law)
• Appearance and non-appearance of parties, ex parte decrees and the hearing of the suit (Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act)