Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963

Introduction

Sufficient cause for extension of prescribed period is considered as the condonation of delay. The term “Sufficient cause” is not defined under the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, it gives a much wider scope of interpretation.

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 states that, to seek condonation of delay a party must show the “sufficient cause” of the delay.

General principles regarding Condonation of delay

• The Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another v. Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987, has laid down some guiding principles which the court must follow while dealing with the issue of Condonation of delay and they are as follows:
  • Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
  • Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties
  • Every day's delay must be explained, and it does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
  • When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
  • There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
  • It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Sufficient Cause

• Sufficient cause means there should be adequate reasons or reasonable ground for the court to believe the applicant was prevented from proceeding with the application in a Court of Law.
• Section 5 allows the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases on sufficient cause being shown for the delay.
• In State of West Bengal v. Administrator (1972):
  • The Supreme Court held that the extension of time is a matter of concession and cannot be claimed by the party as a matter of right.
  • It is difficult and undesirable to precisely define the meaning of sufficient cause. It must be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. However, a sufficient cause should fulfill the following essentials:
    • It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party invoking it.
    • He must not be guilty of negligence.
    • His diligence and care must be shown.
    • His intention must be bonafide.

Illustrations of Sufficient cause for Condonation of Delay

• The applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period
• Serious illness of the applicant
• Significant changes in the law
• Applicant is disqualified under any law for the time being in force
• Delay in procuring copies from the officials

Some Landmark Judgments in which the court had interpreted “Sufficient Cause” for Condonation of delay

• Krishna v. Chattappan (1889):
  • The Privy Council laid down two rules for interpreting sufficient cause:
    • The cause must be beyond the control of the invoking party, and
    • The parties must not be lacking bona fide or shown to be negligent or inactive.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008):
  • The Supreme Court held that the expression sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay.
• Ambrose & Ors v. Don Bosco (2020):
  • The court held that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the concerned court in regard to the condonation of delay
  • If the delay in question is not either properly or satisfactorily explained, the court of law cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground alone

Latest Judgments

• N. Mohandoss v. The management of Darasuram (2021)
  • The court held that, it is to be borne in mind that the term sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is an elastic one to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful fashion, with a view to secure the ends of justice
• Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (2024)
  • The Supreme Court held that, in case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be justified grounds to condone the delay.
• K.B. Lal Vs. Gyanendra Pratap and Ors. (2024)
  • The Supreme Court held that, the reason for giving the term sufficient cause a wide and comprehensive meaning is to ensure that deserving and meritorious cases are not dismissed solely on the ground of delay

Conclusion

The concept of sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, 1963, serves as a safeguard against unjust deprivation of rights due to procedural delays. It enables courts to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring that justice is not denied on mere technicalities. However, parties seeking condonation of delay must provide cogent reasons supported by evidence to justify their plea. Ultimately, the determination of sufficient cause rests on the equitable discretion of the courts, guided by principles of fairness and justice.