Bald allegations against counsel, unsupported by evidence, do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay.

The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Jabalpur, which was rejected on 26.04.2016.

Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Second Additional District Judge, Sihora, where a compromise application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed and a decree was passed on 22.08.2017.

The appellant later claimed this compromise was filed by his previous counsel without consent and in collusion with the respondent.

The appellant then filed a First Appeal under Section 96 CPC with a delay application (MJC No. 184/2020), which was dismissed on 05.10.2021.

A subsequent Miscellaneous Petition (No. 3667/2021) under Article 227 of the Constitution was also dismissed by the High Court on merits and limitation on 13.07.2022.

The appellant filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal with a delay of 1698 days, seeking condonation via I.A. No. 7744/2022.

1. Whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1698 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal.

2. Whether bald allegations of professional misconduct or collusion against a previous counsel, unsupported by evidence, are sufficient to bypass the law of limitation.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires the applicant to show "sufficient cause" for not preferring an appeal within the prescribed period.

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding compromise of suits.

The public policy principle that the law of limitation is intended to ensure certainty and finality in litigation, and that equitable relief requires the party to approach the court with "clean hands".

The court found the appellant’s explanation for the 1698-day delay unsatisfactory.

It noted that the record evidenced the appellant’s voluntary participation in the compromise, as he had signed both the Order XXIII Rule 3 application and the relevant order sheets before the lower appellate court.

The Court observed that the appellant had already exhausted two levels of challenge (a First Appeal and a Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227), both of which were dismissed.

Regarding the allegations against the previous counsel, the Court reasoned that "bald allegations," lacking independent or cogent evidence of fraud or collusion, do not constitute "sufficient cause".

The Court concluded that the appellant failed to prove any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned orders and had suppressed the fact of the prior dismissal of his Article 227 petition.

The Court dismissed I.A. No. 7744/2022 for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal.