Section 5 and “Sufficient Cause” (Condonation of Delay)

Limitation periods are vital in Indian law. They encourage parties to resolve disputes promptly and bring stability to legal proceedings. However, life is unpredictable. There are times when a genuine party is unable to approach the court within the fixed time. To prevent such litigants from losing their right solely due to technical delay, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 comes into play.

Section 5 introduces the concept of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. This provision allows courts to be flexible and do justice where a rigid application of limitation law would result in unfairness. Let us understand the scope, principles, and judicial interpretation of this important provision.

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Section 5 allows a court to accept an appeal or application filed after the expiry of the limitation period, provided the applicant can show “sufficient cause” for the delay. The text reads:

“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”

This means the law is not blind to practical realities. If someone has a valid reason for being late, the court may give relief.

The Philosophy behind Section 5

The law of limitation is based on public policy. It ensures that legal actions are taken promptly and that the other party is not caught by surprise after long years. But Section 5 shows that law is not just about technicality—it is also about fairness.

Rigid application of limitation may result in injustice, especially when the delay is for reasons beyond the party’s control. Section 5 is the balancing tool. It allows the court to check if there is a genuine reason for the delay and, if so, to let the case proceed.

“Sufficient Cause”: Meaning and Interpretation

The term “sufficient cause” is not defined in the Limitation Act. This gives the courts wide powers to interpret it. Indian courts have repeatedly held that this phrase should be understood liberally, to advance substantial justice.

What can be “sufficient cause”?

• Serious illness or hospitalisation of the applicant or their counsel
• Death in the family
• Delay in getting necessary documents or certified copies
• Misleading orders or practices of the court
• Natural calamities like floods, earthquakes, lockdowns, etc.
• Legal disability such as minority or insanity
• Significant changes in law or interpretation

However, just being busy, careless, or ignorant of law is not sufficient cause.

Absence of negligence

The applicant should show that there was no negligence on their part. They must have acted in good faith and with due diligence. If the court finds the applicant has been careless or deliberately delayed, condonation will be refused.

Condonation of Delay: The Court’s Discretion

Condonation of delay under Section 5 is not a right; it is a matter of judicial discretion. The court will examine:

• The length of delay
• The reasons given for the delay
• Conduct of the applicant
• Possible prejudice to the other party

The approach is generally liberal, especially if refusing to condone the delay would cause more injustice.

Leading Supreme Court Judgements

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has laid down important principles for interpreting “sufficient cause”.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)

This landmark case clarified the approach towards condonation:

• A litigant does not gain by delay.
• Refusing condonation can throw out meritorious cases.
• Courts should not adopt a strict or pedantic approach.
• “Every day’s delay” must be explained, but courts must apply common sense.
• There should be no presumption of mala fides or negligence.

State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972)

Here, the Supreme Court held:

• Extension of time is a matter of concession, not right.
• Sufficient cause must be judged based on facts of each case.
• The cause should be beyond control and without negligence.

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998)

This case further clarified:

• The length of delay is not as important as the acceptability of the explanation.
• Short delays can be refused if the explanation is poor; long delays may be condoned if the explanation is good.

Essentials for “Sufficient Cause”

To establish sufficient cause, the applicant must show:

1. Reason was beyond their control: Illness, accident, or other unavoidable circumstances.
2. No negligence: The applicant must show that they were vigilant and made all reasonable efforts to file on time.
3. Bona fide intention: The intention must be honest and without any malafide.
4. Prompt action after obstacle: Once the obstacle is removed, the party should act without further delay.

Common Illustrations of Sufficient Cause

• Serious illness: The applicant was bedridden or hospitalised.
• Official delay: Delay in receiving certified copies or court orders.
• Natural calamity: Lockdown, floods, or other disasters making it impossible to file on time.
• Change in law: Sudden change in legal requirements or judgements.
• Misleading court practice: Applicant was misled by a court order or practice.

Each case depends on its own facts, and courts demand proper proof such as medical certificates, official letters, or affidavits.

When Delay is Not Condoned

Not all delays are condoned. Courts are strict where:

• The applicant was simply careless or ignorant.
• There is lack of proper evidence.
• The explanation is vague (“I was busy”, “I forgot”, etc.).
• There is clear negligence or deliberate delay.

Conclusion

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is a humane provision. It recognises that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicality. The concept of “sufficient cause” ensures that genuine litigants get a fair chance, while still respecting the principle of finality.

But this relief is not automatic. The applicant must make out a strong, honest, and well-supported case for the delay. Courts will consider the reasons, evidence, conduct, and overall fairness before granting or refusing condonation.

Thus, Section 5 and the doctrine of sufficient cause play a crucial role in balancing justice and certainty in the Indian legal system. It reminds us that law, at its best, is both principled and compassionate.