Inordinate appellate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.

The husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur, on 27 November 2020.

He filed an appeal under Section 28 of the Act on 20 February 2024, with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 1,012 days’ delay.

He attributed the delay to frustration and depression, caring for his elderly parents, the COVID-19 pandemic, and waiting for a possible settlement.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits a court to admit an appeal after the prescribed period if the appellant establishes sufficient cause for the delay.

The Court relied on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, which cautions that inordinate delay should not be condoned routinely and that the explanation offered must be scrutinised; delay and laches may prejudice the administration of justice and affect others’ accrued rights.

The Court found that the appellant’s affidavit offered only bald assertions and did not adequately explain why he could not approach the Court within the limitation period.

The stated circumstances—including the pandemic, his parents’ medical needs, and his expectation of settlement—did not sufficiently account for the 1,012-day delay.

Applying the principle that inordinate delay requires a satisfactory explanation, the Court held that sufficient cause had not been established.

Consequently, it dismissed the appeal without considering its merits.