Inordinate delay cannot be condoned on superficial grounds absent evidence of sufficient cause or vigilance.

The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Appeal against an ex-parte judgment and award dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna

The appeal was filed with a delay of 1296 days (approximately 3 years and 5 months)

The appellants contended they had no knowledge of the legal proceedings until receiving notice in the execution proceedings on 12.12.2025

They filed I.A. No. 27070/2025 seeking condonation of this delay, asserting the delay was bona fide and not intentional

The respondent opposed the application citing the inordinate length of the delay

1. Whether the appellants established "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 1296 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal

"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) 17 SCC 448

Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi, AIR 2022 SC 332

Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025, which held that administrative lethargy, laxity, or superficial grounds cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation, and courts must not encourage a "lackadaisical attitude" that frustrates the finality of litigation

The Court found the appellants' submissions lacked merit, noting a total failure to prove the cause of the 1296-day delay or provide a plausible explanation

The Court observed that no supporting documents were produced to substantiate the claim of lack of knowledge regarding the original proceedings

Applying the Supreme Court’s directives in Shivamma, the Court reasoned that condoning such an inordinate delay without sufficient cause would misuse the process of law and cause "insult to injury" for the private litigant who had already secured a decree

The Court emphasized that limitation periods exist to ensure finality in litigation and that judicial discretion should not be exercised to legitimize callous or lethargic conduct

Consequently, I.A. No. 27070/2025 was dismissed

As the application for condonation of delay was rejected, the Miscellaneous Appeal was also dismissed

All pending interlocutory applications were closed