Delay cannot be condoned merely to afford a hearing without sufficient cause.

The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, obtained an ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction on 3 November 2018.

Defendants 2 and 3 applied to set aside the decree and sought condonation of delay, stated in the revision to be 429 days.

They attributed the delay to leg fractures following an accident, Ayurvedic treatment and subsequent dengue fever.

The Trial Court condoned the delay, imposing costs of Rs.10,000, despite finding that no documentary evidence substantiated the medical explanation.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

Whether the Trial Court properly exercised its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condoning the delay in applying to set aside the ex parte decree.

Whether the Trial Court’s order was liable to be set aside in revision for granting condonation without sufficient cause.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation only where the applicant shows “sufficient cause”; the length of delay is not decisive if sufficient cause is established.

In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1969, the Supreme Court held that delay should not be condoned on superficial grounds and that a grant of condonation may be interfered with where discretion was exercised on extraneous considerations, contrary to law, or despite lack of evidence; a plausible exercise of discretion should ordinarily be respected.

The judgment also relied on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under Tamil Shops and Establishments Act, (1989) SCC OnLine Mad 256, for the principle that a litigant’s unexplained delay may defeat consideration on the merits.

The judgment also relied on P. Suresh Kumar v. M. Dhandapani (2025) SCC OnLine Mad 13160 and J. Kulasekaran v. K. M. Yella Reddy (2026) SCC OnLine Mad 408, for the proposition that a delay application must be decided on the cause shown, not the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Court distinguished Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 609, as involving exceptional facts and not displacing the requirement of sufficient cause.

The defendants’ explanation was that both applicants had suffered fractures in an accident, undergone a year of Ayurvedic treatment and later contracted dengue. However, the Trial Court found no documentary evidence supporting those claims.

Rather than finding sufficient cause, it condoned the delay because the defendants should have an opportunity to contest the suit.

The High Court held that this reliance on the merits or perceived importance of the defendants’ property rights could not substitute for the statutory requirement of sufficient cause.

Although the delay was variously stated as 418 and 429 days, that discrepancy was immaterial to the central question: whether a sufficient cause had been established.

It allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition; no costs were awarded.