Inordinate delay lack of communication by counsel does not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

The applicants filed a Miscellaneous Common Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of Second Appeal (SA) No. 531/1999, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on May 2, 2014.

According to the High Court office note dated February 26, 2026, there was a delay of 4,191 days in filing the restoration application.

The applicants contended that they only became aware of the 2014 dismissal on January 15, 2025, upon receiving a notice from the Executing Court in Jagdalpur, and further alleged that their previous counsel had failed to communicate the dismissal order.

1. Whether the applicants provided sufficient cause for the condonation of a 4,191-day delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal.

The court applied the principles governing the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The rule requires an applicant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for failing to prefer an application within the prescribed period.

Under Indian jurisprudence, while "sufficient cause" is construed liberally to advance substantial justice, the length of delay—here over 11 years—requires a robust and credible explanation to override the expiration of the limitation period and the resulting finality of the court's prior order.

The Court evaluated the applicants' explanation for the substantial delay of 4,191 days.

The applicants' primary justifications were a lack of communication from their advocate and lack of knowledge of the dismissal until execution proceedings commenced.

However, the Court determined that these explanations were inadequate to justify a decade-long period of inaction.

By failing to provide a compelling or substantiated reason for the extreme lapse in time, the applicants failed to meet the threshold of "sufficient cause" required to overlook the statutory limitation period.

Consequently, the Court rejected IA No. 01/2025 (the application for condonation of delay) and dismissed the MCC for restoration.

The dismissal of the Second Appeal dated May 2, 2014, remains undisturbed.