In considering applications for condonation of delay, courts must assess whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated based on events leading to the delay.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 44 of 2015, which was one filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, against the appellant for realisation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, together with interest and cost. In that suit, the defendants were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was also passed on 05.01.2017. Seeking an order to set aside that ex parte decree, the appellant- 1st defendant filed R.P.I.A.No. 20 of 2022, invoking the provisions under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with I.A.No. 1 of 2022, which is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking an order to condone the delay of 2110 days in filing the former application. Those applications ended in dismissal by the common order dated 23.12.2022 for the reasons stated therein. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed invoking the provisions under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. On 29.03.2023, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The respondents entered appearance through counsel.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-1st defendant and also the learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs.

4. The reasoning of the court below in the impugned order dated 23.12.2022, for dismissing the applications, reads thus:

“6. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant appeared in the suit and contested the suit for some time and thereafter she did not appear and was set ex-parte and the suit was decreed. From the records, it is seen that the 2nd defendant has received summons for the 1st defendant also. So, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant was not aware of the suit. Admittedly, in 2021 the 1st defendant came to India. Thereafter, also he did not care to file any application to set aside ex-parte decree. The above petition is without any merit and there is no reason to condone the delay of 2110 days. Hence the petitions are dismissed.”

5. The Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. Section 5 of the Act deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases. As per Section 5, any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. As per Explanation to Section 5, the fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section.

6. It is well settled that the Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay. In an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court has to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. Adopting a liberal approach in condoning the delay is one of the guiding principles, but such liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to approach the court-at-will disregarding the time limit fixed by the relevant statute. The acts of negligence or inaction on the part of a litigant do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the matter of condonation of delay, sufficient cause is required to be shown, thereby explaining the sequence of events and the circumstances that led to the delay.

7. In Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, in the context of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, the Apex Court held that, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts