Unsubstantiated claims and vague allegations of negligence fail to establish sufficient cause for condoning delay.

The applicant sought condonation of a 1,938-day delay (over six years) in filing a first appeal against a City Civil Court Mumbai order dated 27 July 2016.

The appeal, which was required to be filed within 30 days, was only preferred on 18 December 2021.

The applicant attributed the delay to a paralytic attack suffered in 2012, subsequent communication failures by his previous advocate, financial constraints, and old age.

It was further noted that the respondent had initiated execution proceedings against the applicant.

Whether the applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion for condoning a delay of 1,938 days.

The court relied on the principle that condonation of delay requires the demonstration of "sufficient cause" supported by evidence rather than bald averments.

The ratio from the Supreme Court decision in Shivamma (dead) by Lrs. v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine Sc 1969), which emphasizes that discretionary relief should not be granted where the delay is a strategic attempt to frustrate the execution of a decree.

The Court found the applicant's justifications unsubstantiated and contradictory.

The applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to support claims of illness or professional negligence by his prior advocate.

The Court noted that the paralytic attack occurred in 2012, whereas the impugned order was passed in 2016; therefore, the pre-existing condition did not sufficiently explain the post-order delay.

The Court questioned why the applicant’s son, who eventually assisted in filing the appeal in 2021, could not have done so in 2016.

The Court observed a trend where unsuccessful litigants file belated appeals primarily to obstruct execution proceedings, concluding that granting condonation in such instances would unfairly penalize the decree-holder.

The Interim Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the First Appeal was also dismissed.