Dismissal of review petition for failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for a five-year delay.

The petitioner filed a review petition seeking to recall the order dated 30.01.2013 passed in W.P. No. 1365/2013, which had directed the Disciplinary Authority to conclude a pending departmental enquiry within one month

The review petition was filed with a delay of 2,118 days (over five and a half years). The petitioner contended the delay was due to the negligence of his previous counsel, who allegedly failed to inform him of the case disposal and misplaced the file

On merits, the petitioner argued that his services were terminated without a lawful enquiry and that the court failed to consider certain departmental reports in the original order

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2,118 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether the original order dated 30.01.2013 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the requirement of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay

It relied on Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits review jurisdiction to errors apparent on the face of the record and prohibits re-hearing a case like an appeal

The Court also invoked the principle "delay defeats equity," citing Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi AIR 2022 SC 332, emphasizing that courts assist the vigilant and not those who slumber over their rights

The respondent relied on D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 322 regarding the lack of specific explanation for inordinate delay

The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide a "sufficient cause" for the massive delay of 2,118 days, characterizing the explanation regarding the previous counsel's negligence as "concocted" and "sketchy"

Regarding the merits of the review, the Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to seek a reconsideration of the controversy and a reappreciation of evidence, which is outside the scope of review jurisdiction

The Court noted that a review proceeding cannot be an "appeal in disguise" and that the original order merely directed a time-bound conclusion of an enquiry, which showed no inherent legal error

Consequently, the Review Petition was also dismissed both on the grounds of limitation and for failing to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record