Laches of an advocate should not jeopardize a client’s interest in seeking condonation of delay.

The Applicant (N.F. Railway) filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of a 264-day delay in preferring an appeal against a judgment and award dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tripura

The prescribed limitation period for filing the appeal was 60 days, expiring on 14.02.2025

The Applicant contended that the delay occurred because the concerned panel advocate returned the case file only on 28.04.2025, and the certified copy of the judgment was obtained on 06.05.2025

Subsequently, the file underwent multiple levels of administrative vetting and legal opinion cycles between offices in Maligaon (Guwahati) and Agartala, further delayed by the High Court's Puja vacation from September to October 2025

The Respondent (Claimant) opposed the application, arguing that the delay was inordinate and the explanation for the period between May and September 2025 was insufficient

1. Whether the Applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 264-day delay in filing the appeal

2. Whether the laches of a panel advocate and the procedural delays inherent in government decision-making justify the exercise of discretionary power for condonation

The court applied Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates a 60-day limitation for appeals

It further applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period if "sufficient cause" is shown

The court considered the principles from Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), which emphasizes that condonation is a matter of judicial discretion and requires a "sufficient cause" that is not the result of negligence or inaction

It also referenced Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), which cautions that government departments cannot claim mechanical condonation based solely on bureaucratic methodology

The Court scrutinized the timeline provided in the Applicant's additional affidavit. It noted that while a significant portion of the delay (140 days) was caused by the panel advocate failing to return the file promptly, the client's interest should not be jeopardized by the advocate's laches

For the remaining 124 days, the Court found the administrative correspondence between the Law Officer in Guwahati and the Deputy SGI in Agartala, coupled with logistical factors and the High Court vacation, to be a plausible explanation

The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the Respondent, noting that those cases involved far more massive delays (e.g., 3,966 days in Shivamma) compared to the 264 days here

It concluded that the delay was not intentional but was a result of the running administrative process and the professional default of the previous counsel

The court found the explanation offered in the additional affidavit to be satisfactory and not indicative of inordinate or deliberate inaction

Accordingly, IA No. 1 of 2025 was allowed, and the 264-day delay in preferring the appeal was condoned