Administrative lethargy and lack of communication from counsel do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay.

The petitioners filed a review petition seeking to challenge the order dated 09.01.2015 passed in Second Appeal No. 453/2004, which had dismissed their appeal

Accompanying the review petition was I.A. No. 6215/2016, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 428-day delay

The petitioners contended that the delay was due to a lack of communication from their counsel regarding the 2015 disposal, and they only became aware of the dismissal on 04.04.2016

They further cited the petitioner’s illiteracy, age (50 years), and illness as grounds for the delay

1. Whether the petitioners established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 428 days in filing the review petition

The Court relied on the principle that "delay defeats equity" and that legal remedies are for the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights

The courts cannot entertain stale claims based on mere equity as established in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) and Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi (2022)

Administrative lethargy, laxity, or "frivolous and superficial grounds" do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay as held in Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025)

The Court found the petitioners' justifications—specifically the lack of communication from counsel and personal circumstances like illiteracy—to be "merely administrative" and insufficient to explain the inordinate delay of 428 days

The Court observed a lack of due diligence and failure to satisfactorily explain the timeline

Constitutional courts must not "legitimize" callous attitudes toward limitation periods, as doing so leads to perpetual litigation and frustrates the finality of judicial decrees

Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate they acted with bona fides or remained vigilant, the delay could not be condoned

The review petition was dismissed as time-barred

No litigant should be permitted to misuse the process of law through lethargy