Unexplained, inordinate delay cannot be condoned absent sufficient cause.

The appellant, Defendant No. 2 in a partition suit, challenged the decree by filing a first appeal with a delay of 2 years, 5 months and 20 days.

The First Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

In the second appeal, the appellant also sought to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondents 2, 4 and 6 on record, seeking condonation of delays of 4,970, 2,031 and 3,316 days respectively.

He attributed the delays to his work as a coolie, financial hardship and learning of the deaths only after visiting his village in 2025.

Respondent No. 1 opposed the applications, also asserting that a final decree had been effected and the parties put in possession of their shares.

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 2 years, 5 months and 20 days in filing the first appeal

Whether the delays in applying to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondents 2, 4 and 6 on record were supported by sufficient cause

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits a court to condone delay only where sufficient cause is established; the discretion must be exercised judicially, and an unexplained delay, negligence or want of due diligence does not warrant condonation.

The Court relied on Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasi Rao v. Reddy Sridevi, (2021) 18 SCC 384; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 39; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556; Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448; and Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81, among other authorities, for the principles governing sufficient cause, diligence and the accrued rights arising from limitation.

The second appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, which governs second appeals.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the First Appellate Court’s conclusion that the delay in filing the first appeal was not satisfactorily explained.

That court had relied on the record showing that a certified copy of the judgment and decree was obtained in 2007 and had found the appellant’s account of when he learned of the decree unreliable; the appellant’s evidence and explanations did not establish sufficient cause.

The High Court likewise found that the explanations offered for the much longer delays in bringing the legal representatives on record—principally the appellant’s work, financial hardship and claimed lack of knowledge—did not account sufficiently for the periods of delay.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that the required diligence and sufficient cause had not been shown.

It found no illegality or infirmity in the First Appellate Court’s refusal to condone the delay in filing the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal.