Inordinate delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity without establishing sufficient cause within the limitation period.

The applicant filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 3192/2012) in 2012 seeking monetary benefits and the quashing of orders from 2010

The petition was dismissed by the Registry on April 19, 2012, due to non-compliance with a peremptory order dated March 5, 2012

In 2025, approximately 13 years after the dismissal, the applicant filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) for restoration

The applicant, aged 76, cited the negligence of his former counsel, his physical infirmity, and financial crisis as grounds for the delay

It was further noted that the applicant had retired from service on June 30, 2007

Whether the applicant established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone an inordinate delay of 13 years in filing the restoration application

The court primarily applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which requires an applicant to establish "sufficient cause" for failing to approach the court within the prescribed period

Principles from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612), incorporating Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, establishing that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity; substantial justice should not prejudice the opposite party; the "sufficient cause" must be traced to circumstances arising within the period of limitation; and rules of limitation are based on public policy to prevent the "Sword of Damocles" from hanging over a respondent indefinitely

The court analyzed the 13-year delay against the standard of "reasonable diligence" required of a litigant

While the applicant pleaded counsel error and personal hardship (age and financial status), the court found these explanations insufficient to justify a decade-long vacuum in prosecution

Applying the Ramkumar Choudhary doctrine, the court emphasized that a party seeking condonation must explain the inability to file between the first and last day of the limitation period

The court observed that the applicant failed to provide any plausible explanation for the "inordinate" delay and noted that the underlying petition itself was filed significantly after his retirement in 2007

Consequently, the court determined that the applicant's inaction for 13 years constituted a lack of bona fides and failed the vital test for condoning delay

Accordingly, I.A. No. 24937/2025 (application for condonation of delay) was dismissed and the MCC for restoration was dismissed as being barred by limitation