Inordinate appellate delay cannot be condoned without a bona fide, cogent explanation.

The appellant sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of an 811-day delay in filing a writ appeal against the order dated 25 April 2024 in W.P. No. 22065 of 2021.

He attributed the delay to age-related ailments, a road accident resulting in a leg fracture and a year-long recovery, followed by eye surgery; he stated that he consulted counsel in August 2026 to pursue the appeal.

The Court considered the condonation application and dismissed it, with the appeal rejected at the SR stage.

1. Whether the appellant established sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 811-day delay in filing the writ appeal

2. Whether the explanations in the appellant’s affidavit were bona fide and sufficiently valid and cogent to justify condonation of the delay

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation only where sufficient cause is established.

In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Supreme Court held that delay and laches may justify refusal of discretionary relief, with discretion exercised judicially and reasonably.

Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, establishes that the length of delay is relevant, the court must first assess the bona fides of the explanation, and substantial justice does not automatically override inaction.

Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 INSC 672, reiterates that delay should not be condoned as an act of generosity and that the applicant must demonstrate reasonable grounds for the delay.

Applying those principles, the Court assessed the appellant’s explanation before considering the merits of the proposed appeal.

It found that the affidavit’s assertions concerning his ailments, accident, recovery and eye surgery did not amount to sufficient cause for the inordinate delay; no valid and cogent reasons had been assigned to justify the full delay.

The Court therefore found no ground to exercise its discretion in the appellant’s favour.

It dismissed C.M.P. No. 23237 of 2026 and consequently rejected W.A. SR No. 141431 of 2026 at the SR stage.