Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 110 days — Misplacement of certified copy — Sufficiency of cause Held, where the sole cause pleaded for condonation of delay of 110 days was misplacement of the certified copy of the judgment and decree, but the record revealed that the very same certified copy applied for and received earlier was filed along with the appeal and no proof of obtaining any extra copy was produced, the explanation does not constitute “sufficient cause”. (Paras 4–6)

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Delay of 110 days — Misplacement of certified copy — Sufficiency of cause

Held, where the sole cause pleaded for condonation of delay of 110 days was misplacement of the certified copy of the judgment and decree, but the record revealed that the very same certified copy applied for and received earlier was filed along with the appeal and no proof of obtaining any extra copy was produced, the explanation does not constitute “sufficient cause”.
(Paras 4–6)

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Diligence — Bona fides — Discretion of Court

Held, lack of diligence and absence of bona fide explanation disentitle the appellant from discretionary relief of condonation of delay; concepts such as liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or substantial justice cannot be employed to frustrate the substantive law of limitation.
(Paras 6–8)

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — Rigour of limitation — Equitable considerations

Held, even though limitation may harshly affect rights of parties, it has to be applied with full rigour as prescribed by statute, and courts have no power to condone delay on equitable grounds when negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large.
(Paras 7–10)

---

Appeal — Condonation of delay — Merits of appeal — Irrelevance

Held, merits of the appeal are not required to be considered while deciding an application for condonation of delay; the Court must first ascertain the bona fides and sufficiency of the cause shown.
(Paras 7–10)

---

Appeal barred by limitation — Consequence

Held, on rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Para 7)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.210 of 2017, a suit for specific performance of contract, which was dismissed by decree dated 09.04.2025 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred A.S.No.585 of 2025 beyond the period of limitation, with a delay of 110 days.

3. I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of delay. The only explanation offered was that the certified copy of the judgment and decree was misplaced, and time was taken to obtain an extra copy.

4. The Division Bench examined the record and found that:

   • the certified copy annexed to the appeal was the same copy applied for on 10.04.2025 and received on 14.05.2025, and

   • there was no proof whatsoever of applying for or receiving any additional certified copy.

5. On these facts, the Court held that the explanation offered did not inspire confidence and disclosed lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Court reiterated the settled position that condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary, and such discretion can be exercised only when sufficient cause is shown.
   (Paras 6–8)

2. Relying on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), the Court emphasized that:

   • liberal or justice-oriented approaches cannot override the statute of limitation, and

   • negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide bars condonation of delay.
     (Paras 7–10)

3. The Court further held that:

   • law of limitation is founded on public policy,

   • courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds, and

   • merits of the appeal are irrelevant while deciding an application for condonation of delay.
     (Paras 7–10)

4. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of 110 days.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Misplacement of a certified copy of judgment, without proof and when the same copy is filed along with the appeal, does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Condonation of delay is a discretionary relief, and where lack of diligence or bona fide is evident, liberal or justice-oriented considerations cannot override the statutory rigour of limitation.

3. Merits of the appeal cannot be considered while deciding an application for condonation of delay; absence of sufficient cause mandates rejection of the application and dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Delay in filing appeal — “Sufficient cause” — Misplacement of certified copy — Proof Held, where the appellant pleaded misplacement of the certified copy of the judgment and decree as the cause for delay of 107 days, but the record disclosed that the same certified copy applied for and received earlier was filed along with the appeal, and no proof of obtaining any extra copy was produced, the cause shown does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. (Paras 4–6)

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Delay in filing appeal — “Sufficient cause” — Misplacement of certified copy — Proof

Held, where the appellant pleaded misplacement of the certified copy of the judgment and decree as the cause for delay of 107 days, but the record disclosed that the same certified copy applied for and received earlier was filed along with the appeal, and no proof of obtaining any extra copy was produced, the cause shown does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay.
(Paras 4–6)

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Diligence — Negligence — Effect

Held, lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal and absence of bona fide explanation disentitle the appellant from discretionary relief of condonation of delay; liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot be invoked to defeat the substantial law of limitation.
(Paras 6–9)

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — Public policy — Rigour of limitation — Equitable considerations

Held, law of limitation has to be applied with full rigour as prescribed by statute; courts have no power to condone delay on equitable grounds when negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large.
(Paras 7–10)

---

Appeal — Condonation of delay — Merits of appeal — Relevance

Held, merits of the appeal are not required to be considered while deciding an application for condonation of delay; the Court must first ascertain the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation offered.
(Paras 7–10)

---

Appeal barred by limitation — Consequence

Held, on rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Para 7)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.157 of 2017, filed for specific performance of contract, which came to be dismissed by decree dated 09.04.2025 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred A.S.No.586 of 2025, but the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation with a delay of 107 days.

3. I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay. The sole cause pleaded was that the certified copy of the judgment and decree was misplaced, and that time was taken to obtain an extra copy.

4. The Division Bench examined the record and found that:

   • the certified copy annexed to the appeal was the same copy applied for on 10.04.2025 and received on 14.05.2025, and

   • there was no proof of applying for or receiving any extra copy.

5. The Court thus found that the explanation offered did not inspire confidence and showed lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reiterated that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which can be exercised only on proof of sufficient cause.
   (Paras 6–9)

2. The Court relied upon authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), to emphasize that:

   • concepts such as liberal approach or substantial justice cannot be used to jettison the law of limitation, and

   • negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide bars condonation.
     (Paras 7–10)

3. The Court reaffirmed that:

   • length of delay is relevant,

   • merits of the appeal are irrelevant at the stage of considering condonation, and

   • courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds.
     (Paras 7–10)

4. Applying these principles, the Court held that the appellant failed to establish any sufficient cause for the delay of 107 days.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Misplacement of a certified copy of judgment, without proof and when the same copy is filed along with the appeal, does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Condonation of delay is a discretionary relief, and where lack of diligence or bona fide is evident, liberal or justice-oriented considerations cannot override the statutory rigour of limitation.

3. Merits of the appeal cannot be taken into account while deciding an application for condonation of delay; absence of sufficient cause mandates rejection of the application.

4. Upon rejection of the delay-condonation application, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay ...: advocatemmmohan Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Inordinate delay — “Sufficient cause” — Test Held , delay of 6624 days ...

Limitation Act, 1963 — S.5 — Condonation of delay — Inordinate delay — “Sufficient cause” — Test

Held, delay of 6624 days (almost 18 years) in filing appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. The cause shown must inspire confidence and demonstrate diligence; delay cannot be condoned for mere asking or on flimsy grounds.
(Paras 4–8, 9–10)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal — Ex parte decree — Conduct of defendants — Effect

Held, where defendants were parties to the suit, summons were served, and they consciously chose not to contest the suit resulting in an ex parte decree, absence of explanation either for non-appearance in the suit or for prolonged inaction thereafter disentitles them from discretionary relief of condonation of delay.
(Paras 3, 6–7)

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — Public policy — Rigour of limitation — Equitable considerations

Held, law of limitation is founded on public policy and has to be applied with full rigour; courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. Hardship or inconvenience is not a ground to condone delay when statute prescribes limitation.
(Paras 8, 31–33)

---

Appeal — Condonation of delay — Merits of case — Irrelevance

Held, merits of the case are not required to be examined while considering an application for condonation of delay; delay-condonation applications must be decided strictly on parameters governing “sufficient cause”.
(Para 33(vii), 9)

---

Appeal barred by limitation — Consequence

Held, on rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Paras 10–11)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The 1st respondent (since deceased) instituted O.S.No.21 of 2006 before the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking:

   • allotment of an alternative site of 203 sq. yards, or

   • payment of market value thereof, with consequential reliefs.

2. The suit was decreed on 12-06-2007, directing defendants 1 to 5 (present appellants) to:

   • allot a site of 203 sq. yards in Sy.No.52/40, and

   • pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and costs.

3. The defendants remained ex parte and did not contest the suit.

4. The appellants filed A.S.No.677 of 2025 with a delay of 6624 days.
   An application I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of delay.

5. The affidavit in support of the application relied inter alia on vague explanations, including reference to the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reiterated that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and requires demonstration of sufficient cause.
   (Paras 7–8)

2. The Court found:

   • the explanation offered was an afterthought,

   • the averments did not inspire confidence, and

   • no explanation was given either for non-appearance in the suit or for the long silence after decree.
     (Paras 7–8)

3. The plea based on the COVID-19 pandemic was held untenable, as the decree was passed in 2007, whereas the pandemic occurred in 2020.
   (Para 7)

4. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that:

   • what matters is sufficiency of cause, not length of delay,

   • courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds, and

   • negligence, lack of diligence, or inaction disentitles a party from relief.
     (Paras 29–33)

5. The Court further held that merits of the appeal are irrelevant while deciding condonation of delay and cannot be used to dilute statutory limitation.
   (Para 33(vii))

6. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning an inordinate delay of nearly 18 years.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An inordinate delay of several years in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause demonstrating diligence and bona fides.

2. Where defendants were duly served, chose not to contest the suit, and remain inactive for years thereafter without satisfactory explanation, discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted.

3. Equitable considerations, hardship, or subsequent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic cannot override the statutory rigour of limitation.

4. Upon rejection of the delay-condonation application, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation without examining the merits.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Co...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Co...: advocatemmmohan Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Compliance with directions of Supreme Court — Refund of stamp value — Subseq...

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Compliance with directions of Supreme Court — Refund of stamp value — Subsequent statutory impediment — Moulding relief A. Civil contempt — Scope — Wilful disobedience In contempt proceedings, the Court examines whether there is wilful and deliberate disobedience of its directions. Where substantial compliance is shown and subsequent difficulties arise due to statutory provisions, the Court may mould relief without entering into disputed merits. (Paras 2, 3, 8)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Civil contempt — Compliance with directions of Supreme Court — Refund of stamp value — Subsequent statutory impediment — Moulding relief

A. Civil contempt — Scope — Wilful disobedience
In contempt proceedings, the Court examines whether there is wilful and deliberate disobedience of its directions. Where substantial compliance is shown and subsequent difficulties arise due to statutory provisions, the Court may mould relief without entering into disputed merits.
(Paras 2, 3, 8)

B. Compliance with original judgment — Partial compliance admitted
Where the alleged contemnor had refunded the entire deposited amount with interest and paid additional compensation as directed, but failed to refund the cost of non-judicial stamps, the contempt allegation was confined to the limited issue of stamp value refund.
(Paras 2, 3)

C. Non-judicial stamp papers — Expiry — Statutory bar under Stamp Rules
The State authority rejected refund of the stamp value on the ground that under Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers is barred after expiry of eight years, and the petitioner’s claim was time-barred.
(Paras 4, 7)

D. Subsequent impleadment of State — Bona fide action — Unconditional apology
Where the State, after being impleaded, fairly conceded that rejection of refund was based on a bona fide interpretation of statutory rules and tendered an unconditional apology, the Court took the same on record.
(Paras 6, 7)

E. Contempt jurisdiction — Direction simpliciter — Refund ordered without adjudication on merits
Without entering into the merits of issues arising after disposal of the original civil appeals, the Court directed the State to refund the stamp value upon return of stamp papers, thereby disposing of the contempt petitions.
(Para 8)

F. Closure of contempt against original respondent
In view of the above direction, contempt petitions qua respondent no. 1 were ordered to be closed.
(Para 9)

---

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court was seized of civil contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with its earlier judgment dated 06.09.2024, which directed, inter alia, refund of the cost of non-judicial stamp papers to the petitioner (Paras 2–3).

It was undisputed that respondent no. 1 had substantially complied with the judgment by refunding the deposited amount with interest and paying additional compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. The sole grievance pertained to non-refund of Rs. 3,99,100/- towards stamp value, where expired stamp papers were instead returned (Paras 3–4).

Upon rejection of refund by the Registration Department citing statutory limitation under Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, the petitioner approached the Court through contempt jurisdiction (Paras 4–5). Recognising the peculiar situation, the Court permitted impleadment of the State of Uttar Pradesh (Para 6).

The State fairly admitted that its action was taken on a bona fide interpretation of the statutory rules, tendered an unconditional apology, and expressed readiness to comply with the Court’s directions (Para 7).

The Court consciously refrained from adjudicating the merits of the statutory dispute or limitation issue, and instead exercised its inherent and contempt jurisdiction to issue a direction simpliciter to refund the stamp value upon return of the stamp papers, thereby ensuring effective compliance with its earlier judgment and doing complete justice (Para 8).

Consequently, the contempt petitions against respondent no. 1 were closed (Para 9).

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In contempt proceedings, where substantial compliance with the original judgment is admitted and subsequent non-compliance arises due to statutory impediments acting bona fide, the Supreme Court may, without entering into the merits of such subsequent disputes, issue a direction simpliciter to ensure effective compliance with its earlier आदेश, and close contempt proceedings in the absence of wilful disobedience.