📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!

    Question

    Which of the following would constitute "sufficient

    cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 
    A The appellant's lawyer was on vacation and could not prepare the appeal Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B The appellant simply forgot about the deadline Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C The appellant was genuinely misled by an order, practice, or judgment of the High Court in computing the prescribed period, or circumstances beyond the control such as illness or administrative delays Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D The appellant wanted to gather more evidence after the limitation period expired Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E The appellant changed their mind about pursuing the case and filed late Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Section 5(1) allows courts to extend the period of limitation for appeals and applications (not suits) if the court is satisfied that there was "sufficient cause" for not filing within the prescribed period. The Act explicitly states in the explanation that "being misled by any order, practice, or judgment of the High Court in computing the prescribed period may constitute sufficient cause." This interpretation balances the finality of litigation with fairness. Courts generally consider circumstances beyond a party's control (illness, administrative delays, genuine legal errors, or incorrect advice from legal practitioners) as sufficient cause, but not mere negligence or deliberate inaction.

    Practice Next
    More Other Laws and Acts Questions

    Relevant for Exams:

    ask-question