Unsupported illness claims without treatment details do not establish sufficient cause to condone delay.

The petitioners, defendants 2 and 3 in a money-recovery suit, sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of a 701-day delay in applying to set aside an ex parte decree for Rs.72,47,693, with future interest and costs.

They attributed the delay to the second defendant’s ill health and the third defendant’s fracture, but provided no supporting medical records.

The Trial Court dismissed the condonation application after the petitioners failed to advance arguments despite five opportunities.

They challenged that dismissal under Section 115 CPC.

1. Whether the petitioners established “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the 701-day delay

2. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal of the condonation application warranted interference in revision

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits a court to condone delay only where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause”; establishing such cause is a prerequisite to obtaining condonation.

The revision was brought under Section 115 CPC, and the Court considered whether the Trial Court’s order called for interference.

The Court found that the petitioners’ explanations—ill health and injury—were unsupported by documentary evidence, lacked details about the conditions and treatment periods, and were stated casually in the affidavit.

The delay was nearly two years.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ conduct: they had allegedly refused notices, failed to file a written statement despite opportunities, and did not advance arguments on the condonation application over five hearings.

In those circumstances, the petitioners had not established sufficient cause, and the Trial Court’s dismissal did not warrant interference.

The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.