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.