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.