Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to condone HUDA’s 1,942-day delay in filing a second appeal. The authority knew of the adverse decree and had a legal department and panel lawyers. Its explanation blaming counsel did not establish sufficient cause in the circumstances, given its own lack of diligence.
Issues
- Whether HUDA established sufficient cause for its 1,942-day delay.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The inordinate, inadequately explained delay was not supported by sufficient cause; the authority’s legal managers remained responsible for timely filing and correction of defects. (¶ 14–21)
Held
- HUDA had contested throughout, knew the adverse first appellate decision and possessed legal staff and infrastructure. No justification was shown for prolonged inactivity in filing or curing defects. (¶ 15–17)
- On these facts, blaming the lawyer did not constitute sufficient cause. Legal managers should have monitored the brief and engaged replacement counsel if needed; responsible officers should answer for the lapse and resulting loss. (¶ 18–21)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court refusal to condone delay and dismissal of the second appeal upheld.