Summary
The Supreme Court condoned a 554-day delay in an elderly father-in-law’s appeal against an ex parte Family Court decree. His prolonged heart disease, dengue, hospitalisation and resulting inability to attend to daily affairs were supported by medical documents whose genuineness was not disputed. Those established circumstances warranted a liberal assessment of sufficient cause. The appeal was restored for decision on merits, subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs to the first respondent.
Issues
- Whether the appellant’s undisputed prolonged illness and supporting medical records established sufficient cause for the delayed appeal.
Held
- Sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act had to be assessed in the totality of the established circumstances. The appellant’s age, serious illnesses, lengthy hospitalisation and family distress were undisputed, and the High Court accepted the medical evidence. It should therefore have taken a liberal view and condoned the delay. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
- The Court stated that the earlier rigid requirement of explaining each day’s delay had been diluted by later decisions. Its decision nevertheless rested on the particular explanation being proved by documents, rather than on length of delay alone or automatic exemption for age. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Condonation concerned the appeal against the ex parte decree. The Supreme Court restored that appeal to the High Court for an expeditious merits decision; it did not itself set aside the underlying Family Court decree or decide the parties’ substantive claims. (¶¶ 9, 12, 19, 20)
Result
Appeals allowed. High Court order set aside and 554-day delay condoned subject to Rs.10,000 costs payable to respondent No.1. Appeal No.653/2016 restored for expeditious determination on merits.