An order condoning delay must afford an opportunity to object and state reasons.

The petitioner challenged two orders made in R.A. No. 80/2023: an order dated 9 January 2024 allowing the respondent’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of four years and four months, and an order dated 12 January 2024 granting a temporary stay of execution in O.S. No. 20/2014.

The appellate court issued notice on the limitation application on 31 October 2023. The petitioner appeared on 8 January 2024, and the application was allowed the following day.

The order recorded that the application was unopposed but gave no reasons for condoning the delay.

The stay order had expired by 12 March 2024.

Whether the petitioner was given a sufficient opportunity to object to the application seeking condonation of delay before it was allowed

Whether the appellate court’s order condoning the delay was sustainable despite giving no reasons for its decision

Whether any further relief was required concerning the temporary stay order that had expired

Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers a court to condone delay where sufficient cause is established; an application invoking that provision must be determined after a fair opportunity to the opposing party.

Under the principles of natural justice, a party must have a meaningful opportunity to present objections.

Judicial and quasi-judicial orders must provide intelligible reasons demonstrating application of mind.

The Court relied on Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (2009) 12 SCC 609, which holds that reasons are necessary to ensure clarity, accountability and effective review, and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, which explains that reasoned decisions restrain arbitrariness and are an essential component of fair decision-making.

The temporary stay application arose under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The petitioner appeared on 8 January 2024, and the limitation application was decided on 9 January 2024. The High Court found that this interval did not provide sufficient opportunity to file objections; the fact that the order recorded the application as unopposed did not cure that deficiency.

Further, the appellate court stated only that the grounds and documents were satisfactory, without explaining why a delay of four years and four months should be condoned. That failure to give reasons made the order unsustainable under the cited authorities.

The separate stay order had already expired, so no further order was necessary on that issue.

The respondents may file a rejoinder, after which the appellate court must decide the application afresh; the parties’ rights and contentions were left open.

The challenge to the temporary stay order required no further relief because the order had expired.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.