Topic
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows courts to condone delays in filing appeals or applications if sufficient cause is shown, even after the prescribed limitation period has expired.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Rent Control Tribunal's refusal to condone delay in filing appeal, holding apprehension of arrest does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act when party had ample opportunity to participate.
The Jaipur ITAT approved condonation of a 1038-day filing delay and granted a complete exemption of Rs 9,95,670 leave encashment under Sec 10(10AA). Taxpayers with delayed appeals can thus retain full leave-encashment benefits when the tribunal condones the delay.
The Gujarat High Court denied the State’s plea to condone a 1,790-day delay in land-acquisition appeals, holding that gross negligence is not a bona-fide cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ruling prevents governments from using negligence to revive time-barred appeals, impacting pending acquisition cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court sets aside dismissal of a criminal appeal under Section 138 NI Act solely on a 12-day delay, emphasizing that quasi-criminal matters demand a liberal approach to condonation. The ruling mandates merits hearing where delay is minimal and attributable to rural ignorance or procedural lapses, reinforcing access to justice in statutory appeals.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is unnecessary if the affidavit filed with a restoration petition adequately explains the delay. This ruling prioritizes substantive justice over procedural technicalities, impacting execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.
Karnataka High Court rules that appellate authorities must explicitly decide condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before admitting land records appeals. Failure to do so renders the appellate order procedurally invalid, violating principles of natural justice and requiring remand for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi condones a 744-day delay in filing a tax appeal, ruling that the assessee’s bona fide belief-based on their CA’s advice regarding abatement post-search-constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The decision reinforces that professional reliance, if reasonable, can override strict limitation bars in tax proceedings.
Allahabad HC rules that an appellate court cannot use Section 5 of the Limitation Act to grant bail, as such relief exceeds its statutory powers. The court emphasized that bail must be sought through proper procedural channels, not via limitation extensions.
MP High Court condones a five-month delay in filing an appeal where the litigant, being illiterate and unrepresented, learned of the adverse judgment only through the opposite party. The ruling underscores procedural fairness for vulnerable litigants, holding that ignorance of judgment due to counsel's failure to inform constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
MP High Court rules that courts must adopt a liberal approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when condoning delay in criminal revisions, unless the respondent demonstrates prejudice. The judgment underscores that mechanical dismissal of revisions on technical grounds violates natural justice and access to appellate remedies.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a 277-day delay in filing a second appeal cannot be condoned if caused by an advocate's professional negligence, as equitable relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available where the delay stems from the litigant's own legal representative's failure. This decision reinforces that litigants cannot shift blame for procedural lapses onto their counsel to seek leniency in delay condonation.
Madras High Court holds that a medical certificate from an allopathic doctor suffices to justify delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, even when treatment was via Siddha medicine.
Meghalaya High Court condones 368-day delay in POCSO appeal, holding that financial constraints constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that appellate authorities must consider condonation of delay applications before rejecting appeals, reinforcing procedural fairness under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the same decree is already subjudice in another appeal, even without sufficient cause.