Unexplained delay of two and a half years does not constitute sufficient cause for extension.

The applicant filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Case along with an application for condonation of delay, seeking extension of time to comply with the High Court’s order dated 12 February 2024 in MCC No. 316 of 2022.

In that earlier proceeding, the Court had ordered restoration of Second Appeal No. 348 of 2009 subject to the applicant depositing ₹2,000 before the High Court Legal Services Committee and filing proof of payment within 15 days.

The applicant contended that his counsel could not communicate the order because the applicant’s mobile number had changed, and that the applicant, being an agriculturist, was occupied with agricultural activities and remained unaware of the case status.

The State opposed the application.

The present MCC was filed on 7 August 2026, approximately two and a half years after the original order, without compliance with the stipulated condition.

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of approximately two and a half years in filing the application for extension of time.

Whether the applicant was entitled to extension of time to comply with the order dated 12 February 2024 requiring payment of ₹2,000 and filing of proof within 15 days.

The Court applied the principle that an applicant seeking condonation of delay or extension of time must establish a satisfactory and sufficient cause for the delay and for non-compliance with the Court’s earlier directions.

The Court also applied the procedural rule that a conditional restoration order must be complied with within the time prescribed by the Court unless the applicant obtains a timely extension on showing sufficient cause.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the explanation based on the change of the applicant’s contact number and his agricultural activities did not satisfactorily account for the entire delay of approximately two and a half years.

The applicant had not explained what efforts he made to ascertain the status of the case, nor had counsel explained what steps were taken to communicate the order to him during the intervening period.

In the absence of particulars demonstrating diligence or circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, the Court held that sufficient cause had not been established either for the prolonged non-compliance with the restoration condition or for the delayed filing of the present MCC.

It held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and for non-compliance with the order dated 12 February 2024.

Accordingly, the application seeking extension of time was dismissed, with no order as to costs.