Unsubstantiated illness without medical evidence does not constitute sufficient cause to condone appellate delay.

The petitioner filed O.S. No. 387 of 2022 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning a compound wall and construction on the suit property.

The Trial Court rejected his application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

He appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC, but filed the appeal 244 days out of time and sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

He attributed the delay to ill health and loss of contact with his counsel; the respondent disputed the claim and noted the absence of supporting medical documents.

The Appellate Court dismissed the condonation application and consequently the appeal. The petitioner then sought relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 244-day delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal.

Whether the Appellate Court’s refusal to condone the delay disclosed grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.

In this case, the Court treated an unsupported assertion of illness as insufficient where the petitioner produced no medical document for the relevant period or details of the illness and treatment.

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and found no error warranting interference with the impugned order.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The petitioner relied on his age and alleged ill health, asserting that he had lost contact with his counsel and could not give instructions to file the appeal.

The Court found that he had produced no medical evidence for the relevant period, 14 October 2022 to 15 June 2023, and had not adequately explained the nature or duration of his treatment.

It therefore held that the illness claim was a bald statement and that the Appellate Court was justified in finding no sufficient cause to condone the delay.

In the absence of error in that decision, supervisory interference was unwarranted.

The Appellate Court’s dismissal of the Section 5 application, and consequently the miscellaneous appeal, remained undisturbed; pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.