A litigant must establish sufficient cause before merits can inform delay condonation.

The petitioner, who had been the third defendant in a suit decreed ex parte on 13 April 2009, sought to appeal the decree after a delay of 4,347 days. He said he had entrusted the suit to an advocate after receiving summons and learned of the decree only in November 2020.

He also alleged that an earlier application to set aside the ex parte decree, filed in 2010, had been made without his instructions; that application was dismissed on 27 September 2011.

The First Appellate Court dismissed his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after hearing evidence from the petitioner and two advocates, finding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner’s failure to follow up the case.

The petitioner also alleged that the plaintiff had procured the decree through fraud by including survey numbers not covered by the settlement deed.

Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 4,347-day delay in filing the first appeal.

Whether the petitioner’s allegations of fraud in obtaining the ex parte decree justified condoning the delay or interfering with the First Appellate Court’s order.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a party seeking condonation must first establish sufficient cause; consideration of the merits of the underlying dispute is permissible only after sufficient cause is shown.

In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, decided 12 September 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that a court must first assess the bona fides of the explanation and that a litigant cannot ordinarily invoke substantial justice to overcome delay caused by its own inaction.

Under Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, fraud may vitiate judicial proceedings and permit a court to recall an order obtained by fraud; however, mere constructive fraud or proof of perjury, particularly after long delay, is insufficient to set aside a judgment.

The petitioner invoked Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the First Appellate Court’s order.

The Court held that the petitioner’s explanation did not establish sufficient cause. He admitted receiving summons and engaging counsel, and the evidence before the First Appellate Court supported its finding that the advocates had not been negligent and that the petitioner had failed to follow up the suit. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s allegation that the earlier Section 5 application had been filed without his instructions was not substantiated in the evidence.

The alleged fraud did not warrant a different result: the suit properties’ survey numbers could have changed through subdivision over time, and the petitioner had obtained mutation of revenue records in his favour while excluding the suit survey numbers, yet offered no explanation for not approaching the court when that occurred.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the refusal to condone the delay.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.