Inordinate delay cannot be condoned on superficial grounds without establishing bona fide sufficient cause.

The petitioner sought a review of an order dated 13.02.2013, which had enhanced a compensation award.

Along with the review petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2771/2019 to condone a delay of 2171 days.

The petitioner alleged the delay was due to a mistake by his counsel, who inadvertently filed an appeal for the claimants rather than the petitioner, leading to the petitioner being unrepresented and unaware of the enhancement until a warrant of attachment was received.

The respondents opposed the application, citing a lack of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and arguing that the review fell outside the court's jurisdiction.

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" to condone the inordinate delay of 2171 days in filing the review petition.

2. Whether the grounds for review satisfy the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under the law.

The Court applied the principle that "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.

The Court relied on Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, which holds that "administrative lethargy and laxity" or "frivolous and superficial grounds" cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, especially when it disrupts the finality of litigation for the opposing party.

The Court reaffirmed the principles regarding condonation of delay as stated in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi.

The Court found the petitioner’s explanation—blaming counsel’s mistake and lack of knowledge—unsupported by cogent material and insufficient to justify a delay of nearly six years.

Applying the Shivamma precedent, the Court reasoned that allowing such a belated claim would result in "perpetual litigations" and frustrate the fruits of the original decree obtained by the respondents.

The Court emphasized that institutional or individual apathy should not be a ground to reopen matters at a belated stage.

On the merits of the review itself, the Court determined there was no "error apparent on the face of the record" to satisfy the limited jurisdictional requirements for review.

The review petition was dismissed as both barred by limitation and devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.