Question

Which of the following would constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Q: Answer-Which of the following would constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5...

Section 51 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 partys control illness, administrative delays, genuine legal errors, or incorrect advice from legal practitioners as sufficient cause, but not mere negligence or deliberate inaction.

A The appellant's lawyer was on vacation and could not prepare the appeal

B The appellant simply forgot about the deadline

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

D The appellant wanted to gather more evidence after the limitation period expired

E The appellant changed their mind about pursuing the case and filed late

Practice Next