A court must examine objections and calculate the limitation period before condoning delay.

The petitioners challenged the Senior Civil Judge, Bagepalli’s order allowing the respondent’s application to condone delay in filing R.A. No. 104/2021.

The respondent’s appeal was filed on 2 December 2021 to challenge a decree passed in 2017.

The petitioners contended that the delay was approximately four years and seven months, rather than the 11 months and 19 days stated in the condonation application.

The respondent referred to a Miscellaneous Petition filed in 2018 and withdrawn on 25 October 2021.

The application referred to periods of illness and other circumstances, but stated a delay of 11 months and 19 days.

The High Court found that the order allowing condonation did not address the petitioners’ objections or explain the calculation of delay.

1. Whether the order allowing condonation could stand when it did not address the petitioners’ objection that the delay was substantially longer than the period stated in the application.

2. Whether the appellate court was required to reconsider limitation, including the actual period of delay, on the parties’ pleadings.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established.

Section 14 concerns exclusion of time in specified circumstances; the Court observed that the respondent’s application contained no averment under that provision.

The judgment also referred to the application having been filed under Sections 5 and 13 of the Act, but cited no precedent.

In deciding the challenge, the Court required the appellate court to examine the limitation question afresh, including the parties’ contentions and the relevant dates.

The application asserted a delay of 11 months and 19 days, but the petitioners disputed that calculation, pointing to the 2017 decree and the appeal filed in December 2021.

Although the respondent referred to the intervening Miscellaneous Petition, the impugned order did not address the petitioners’ objections or explain how the stated delay had been calculated.

Given the discrepancy in the asserted period of delay and the absence of reasoning on limitation, the High Court held that the order could not be sustained and remitted the issue for fresh consideration.

The appellate court was directed to reconsider limitation afresh.

The respondent may file a fresh application setting out specific dates, and the petitioners may file objections; the appellate court must then proceed in accordance with law.