Summary
The Court set aside condonation of a 1,011-day delay in a second appeal because the applicants had not satisfactorily explained the period after their pleaded illness ended. A preference for decision on merits and an award of costs could not replace sufficient cause. The unexplained inaction showed negligence and lack of diligence, and the High Court had not exercised its discretion judicially. The second appeal was consequently dismissed as time-barred; the merits of the injunction dispute were not decided.
Issues
- Whether a long delay could be condoned to permit adjudication on merits when substantial periods remained unexplained.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Condonation required sufficient cause and a judicial exercise of discretion on the circumstances; equitable considerations or conditions could not substitute for the missing explanation. (¶ 6-8)
Held
- The applicants pleaded illness and advised bed rest only up to 15 March 2017. They gave no sufficient explanation for the subsequent period until filing in 2021, establishing gross negligence or want of due diligence on these facts. (¶ 6.1-6.2)
- Expiration of limitation gives the decree-holder a legally recognised benefit. Although sufficient cause may receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, discretion must be exercised judicially and cannot excuse unexplained negligence merely to obtain a merits hearing. (¶ 7.1-7.5)
- The High Court’s view that condonation caused no prejudice and would permit debate on merits did not meet the statutory requirement. Costs did not cure the absence of sufficient cause. The condonation order was unsustainable on law and facts. (¶¶ 6, 8)
- The condonation order was quashed and the second appeal dismissed on limitation, without an order as to costs. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; condonation order set aside and second appeal dismissed as time-barred.