Negligence and inaction over an eleven-year period precludes condonation of delay despite claims of financial hardship.

The applicants challenged an executing court order dated 24.07.2006, which closed an execution proceeding by permitting the decree-holder (respondent) to acquire title over the attached property because auction attempts failed to fetch a price sufficient to satisfy a decree of ₹5,75,000.

The original decree for refund of earnest money was passed on 28.09.2005 in the presence of the applicants' counsel.

However, the applicants did not appear in the subsequent execution proceedings.

There is a delay of 3,850 days (approximately 10 years and 7 months) in filing the revision.

The applicants claimed the delay was due to financial distress, relocation to Indore for labor work, and their father’s medical treatment.

Whether the applicants established "sufficient cause" to condone the significant delay of 3,850 days in filing the revision petition under the law of limitation.

The Court applied the principle that "substantial justice" cannot be used to jeopardize the substantial law of limitation.

Discretionary power to condone delay must be exercised within reasonable bounds and cannot be granted where the delay results from negligence, default, or inaction of a party.

The Court relied on the precedent of Lanka Venkateshwarlu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, which establishes that courts must maintain a balance of justice for both parties and not act on whims or fancies.

The Court scrutinized the evidence provided for the delay and found it insufficient to justify a decade-long absence. While medical papers showed the father was treated in Indore from 2006, and rent notes existed from 2011, there was no evidence that the entire family permanently relocated or was unable to visit their property in Narsinghpur for 11 years.

The Court noted that Applicant No. 1 and No. 2 pursued higher education (BCA) and held steady employment as a Warehouse Supervisor with an increasing salary during the period of delay, contradicting the claim of extreme financial distress and ignorance.

The Court reasoned that since the applicants were aware of the original decree in 2005, they were required to be vigilant. Their failure to file an appeal or monitor execution proceedings for over a decade was categorized as a "classic case of negligence and reluctance" rather than a genuine inability to approach the court.

The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 6926 of 2017) was dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision was dismissed as time-barred without merit on the application for delay.