The Calcutta High Court dismissed a first appeal as time-barred, holding that the limitation relaxations granted during the COVID-19 pandemic do not apply when the limitation period had already expired before the pandemic. The Court found that the appellants’ allegations of advanced age and medical issues did not constitute sufficient cause to explain a delay of approximately 2179 days in filing the appeal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Chandrachur Bose and Anr., instituted a suit for cancellation of a power of attorney, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs against the respondent, Rajesh Gupta. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a first appeal (FAT 305 of 2026) challenging the dismissal.
Key Facts
- The impugned judgment and decree were passed in the year 2018 (exact date not specified in the judgment).
- The limitation period for filing the first appeal expired well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The appeal was filed on 06.10.2026, after a delay of approximately 2179 days from the date of the impugned judgment/decree.
- The appellants pleaded that the COVID-19 pandemic intervened during the interregnum and cited their advanced years and age-associated issues to explain the delay.
- Copies of medical prescriptions, discharge summaries and other medical papers annexed to the application did not reveal any plausible explanation for the huge delay.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s limitation relaxations during the pandemic are applicable only to cases where the limitation period expired during the pandemic period.
Procedural History
- Date of impugned judgment/decree: 2018 (year only).
- Date of filing of the first appeal (FAT 305 of 2026): 06.10.2026 (the date of the judgment under review).
- Delay alleged: approximately 2179 days.
- 06.10.2026: The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment.
- Consequential disposition: CAN 1 of 2026 dismissed without any order as to costs; FAT 305 of 2026 dismissed as time-barred; CAN 2 of 2026 also disposed of.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought cancellation of the power of attorney, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the first appeal, and whether the COVID-19 pandemic-related limitation relaxations could be availed when the limitation period had already expired before the pandemic.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
- Contended that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an intervening event that disrupted normal judicial functioning and justified the delay.
- Relied on the limitation relaxations announced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the pandemic.
- Cited their advanced age and age-associated health issues as additional grounds for the delay.
- Asserted that the medical documents annexed to the application, while not detailing the delay, indicated their vulnerability and thus supported the plea for condonation.
For the Respondent/State
- Argued that the impugned judgment and decree were passed in 2018, long before the pandemic, and that the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired much prior to the commencement of the pandemic.
- Maintained that the Supreme Court’s pandemic-specific limitation relaxations apply only where the limitation period expired during the pandemic, which was not the case here.
- Pointed out that the medical prescriptions and discharge summaries did not provide any plausible explanation for a delay of over six years.
- Emphasised that mere allegations of advanced age, without concrete medical evidence linking them to the delay, were insufficient to establish sufficient cause.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the principle that delay in filing an appeal must be explained by sufficient cause, and that the burden of proving such cause lies on the party seeking condonation. It noted that the limitation relaxations granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic are expressly confined to cases where the limitation period expired during the pandemic period, as clarified in paragraph 6 of the judgment:
"Insofar as the Pandemic period is concerned, the relaxations granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding limitation for the said period are only applicable to cases where the limitation period expired during the Pandemic period."
The Court observed that the impugned judgment and decree were passed in 2018, well before the pandemic, and that the limitation period for filing the first appeal had therefore expired prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. Consequently, the pandemic-related relaxations could not be invoked.
Turning to the appellants’ alternative grounds, the Court considered the allegations of advanced age and age-associated medical issues. While acknowledging that ill health may constitute sufficient cause in appropriate cases, the Court stressed that such a claim must be substantiated by concrete medical evidence demonstrating how the condition impeded the filing of the appeal. The medical prescriptions, discharge summaries and other medical papers annexed to the application did not reveal any plausible explanation for the delay of approximately 2179 days. The Court found the explanations vague and insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
The Court further held that mere passage of time, without a satisfactory justification, cannot be overlooked, especially when the delay exceeds six years. It emphasized that the doctrine of sufficient cause is not a licence for indefinite postponement and that the courts must guard against misuse of the condonation power.
Having found no valid ground for condonation, the Court concluded that the appeal was time-barred. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 was dismissed without any order as to costs, which consequently led to the dismissal of FAT 305 of 2026 as time-barred, and the disposal of CAN 2 of 2026 as a consequential outcome.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed CAN 1 of 2026 without any order as to costs; consequently FAT 305 of 2026 was declared time-barred and dismissed. CAN 2 of 2026 was also disposed of as a consequential outcome. The appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 2179 days, which the Court found unexplained and insufficiently justified. No costs were awarded to either party.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pandemic Limitation Relaxations Are Not Automatic
The judgment clarifies that the COVID-19 pandemic-related limitation relaxations are not a blanket exemption. Practitioners must first ascertain whether the limitation period for the particular proceeding expired during the pandemic window. If the limitation period had already lapsed before the pandemic, the standard limitation rules apply and no condonation can be claimed on the ground of the pandemic alone.
- Verify the exact date of expiry of the limitation period.
- Compare it with the notified pandemic relaxation period.
- If the expiry predates the pandemic, prepare arguments based on other grounds of sufficient cause.
Burden of Explaining Delay Lies on the Applicant
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay rests squarely on the applicant. Mere assertions or generic explanations are inadequate; the applicant must produce credible, contemporaneous evidence that directly links the alleged cause to the inability to file the appeal within the prescribed period.
- Maintain detailed records of any impediments (e.g., medical certificates, travel restrictions, official notices).
- Correlate the timeline of the impediment with the delay period.
- Avoid relying on vague allegations of age or general ill health without supporting documentation.
Medical Grounds Must Be Substantiated
Claims of ill health or advanced age require specific medical evidence that shows how the condition prevented the party from taking legal steps. General medical prescriptions or discharge summaries that do not address the ability to litigate are insufficient.
- Obtain medical reports that explicitly state the impact of the condition on the party’s capacity to file or pursue legal proceedings.
- Ensure the medical documentation covers the entire period of delay.
- Where medical evidence is lacking, consider alternative grounds for sufficient cause or accept the risk of dismissal.
