Extreme delay cannot be condoned on superficial grounds of counsel’s mistake without cogent evidentiary substantiation.

The petitioner filed a review petition seeking to challenge an order dated 13.02.2013, which had enhanced a compensation award in favor of the claimants

There was an inordinate delay of 2218 days in filing the said petition

The petitioner moved I.A. No. 5954/2019 for condonation of delay, contending that his counsel had mistakenly filed an appeal for the claimants instead of the petitioner and that he remained unrepresented due to lack of notice, only discovering the order upon receipt of a warrant of attachment

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 2218 days under the Limitation Act

2. Whether there exists any error apparent on the face of the record to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction

The Court applied the principle that "delay defeats equity" and that legal remedies are for the vigilant, not those who "slumber over their rights," as established in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008)

This was reinforced by Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi (2022)

Furthermore, the Court relied on Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board and others (Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025), which held that administrative lethargy, laxity, or superficial grounds are insufficient for condonation of delay, and that courts must not reopen matters with inordinate delay to protect the finality of litigation and the rights of private litigants

The Court found the petitioner’s explanation regarding the counsel's mistake and lack of knowledge to be unsubstantiated by any cogent material

It reasoned that the delay of 2218 days was inordinate and not properly explained

Applying the Shivamma precedent, the Court noted that litigants should not be permitted to be apathetic or misuse the process of law to reopen settled matters, as such laxity frustrates the "fruits of decrees" obtained by the opposing party

On the merits of the review, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason to invoke review jurisdiction

The Court held that "sufficient cause" was not made out and no grounds for review existed

No order as to costs was made