Inordinate appellate delay cannot be condoned without specific, bona fide, and cogent sufficient cause.

The appellant sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of a delay of 1,471 days in filing a writ appeal against the order dated 5 October 2021 in W.P. No. 42996 of 2016.

He contended that he suffered from age-related ailments, was undergoing treatment, and became aware of the dismissal of the writ petition only in December 2024.

He further stated that illness and poverty prevented him from contacting counsel promptly and that the case bundle had been misplaced in the office of his previous counsel, causing the delay.

The Division Bench heard the application for condonation before considering the writ appeal at the scrutiny stage.

1. Whether the appellant had shown “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1,471 days in filing the writ appeal?

2. Whether the writ appeal could proceed at the SR stage upon condonation of the delay?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned only upon the establishment of sufficient cause.

Relying on Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court held that delay and laches are relevant considerations and that discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised judicially and reasonably.

Relying on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 INSC 672, the Court reiterated that the length of delay is relevant, the bona fides of the explanation must first be examined, and delay cannot be condoned merely on grounds of substantial justice or generosity where the explanation is not reasonable and cogent.

The merits of the underlying case may be considered only where the explanation for delay and the opposing party’s position are otherwise equally balanced.

The Court found that the appellant’s assertions regarding illness, poverty, late knowledge of the dismissal, and the misplaced case bundle did not constitute a sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay of 1,471 days.

Applying the Supreme Court’s principles, the Bench held that the explanation lacked specific, valid, and cogent reasons and did not establish bona fide diligence in pursuing the remedy.

Since the threshold requirement under Section 5 was not satisfied, the Court did not proceed to examine the merits of the proposed writ appeal.

Consequently, C.M.P. No. 20400 of 2026 was dismissed, and the writ appeal, W.A. No. SR 187354 of 2025, was rejected at the SR stage.