The discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a showing of 'sufficient cause'; internal administrative lapses, such as staff retirement or department relocation, do not constitute sufficient cause for banking entities when gross negligence and lack of due diligence are apparent.

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

I.A. 529 of 2025

1. Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of 194 days delay in filing the appeal against order dated 29.1.2025 passed by the Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in S.A. 355 of 2019 (M/s. Tanvi Enterprises -vs- Karur Vysya Bank Limited) whereby S.A. was allowed.

2. Appeal was filed on 11.8.2025 with an application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the delay was not intentional rather beyond the control of the Appellant. Concerned officer, who was dealing with the matter, retired on 31st March, 2025. There was relocation of the Recovery Department of the Bank. Thereafter when the Bank came to know about the impugned order, application for certified copy was moved on 28th April, 2025. On receipt of the certified copy, instruction was sought for from the higher authorities and the Learned Counsel was consulted for filing the appeal and the draft memorandum was prepared and the appeal was filed.

3. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that no sufficient cause could be shown by the Appellant. The grounds shown by the Appellant are simply lapse of the Bank for which they cannot take advantage. No special steps could be given to the Appellant as far as limitation for filing the appeal is concerned.

4. Admittedly, the appeal is filed within 194 days delay. Law is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) -vs- The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 288] has referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Others -vs- Katiji & Others [(1987) 2 SCC 107] wherein it was held that:

“x x x x ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases liberal approach', justice-oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter-of-fact dead matter to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

5. It is further held that it must be borne in mind, while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of the decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed.

6. Hon’ble Apex Court has also referred to Basawaraj and Another -vs- Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was held in paragraph 23 that:

“The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute a