Unsupported claims of counsel’s failure do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay.

The appellant, District Election Officer, Rewa, filed a miscellaneous appeal challenging an award after a delay of approximately 1,737 days.

The appellant contended that its local counsel had not informed it about the award and that it believed the proceedings were still pending before the Tribunal.

It claimed to have learned of the award only upon receiving notice in execution proceedings in May 2022, after which it promptly applied for a certified copy and filed the appeal.

The respondents opposed condonation, submitting that the delay was approximately five years and had not been properly explained.

The High Court considered the application for condonation of delay, I.A. No. 9373/2022.

Whether the appellant had established sufficient cause for condoning the delay of approximately 1,737 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed where the delay was attributable to the alleged failure of the appellant’s counsel to communicate the award, without supporting material or explanation for the appellant’s prolonged inaction?

An inordinate delay may be condoned only when the applicant establishes “sufficient cause” through a reasonable and adequately supported explanation.

The Court relied on Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, which holds that courts should not entertain belated and stale claims merely on grounds of equity; “delay defeats equity,” and the law assists those who are vigilant rather than those who sleep over their rights.

The Court also relied on Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi, AIR 2022 SC 332, and Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025, wherein the Supreme Court held that administrative lethargy and laxity do not constitute sufficient cause, particularly when the applicant is a State authority; courts must not legitimise governmental inaction or become surrogates for State laxity.

The Court found that the appellant merely asserted that its lawyer had failed to inform it about the award, but produced no document or other material substantiating that assertion.

It also failed to explain why it did not make any inquiry regarding the status of the case for nearly five years.

Applying the principles that limitation promotes finality and that State authorities must demonstrate bona fide and vigilant conduct, the Court held that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1,737 days.

The alleged communication lapse by counsel, unsupported by evidence and accompanied by prolonged inaction, was therefore insufficient to justify reopening the matter.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 9373/2022 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, and, consequently, the miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed.