The court emphasizes the necessity of showing sufficient cause for condoning significant delays in filing appeals, reiterating the importance of the law of limitation.

J U D G M E N T

The appellants have filed C.M. Application No.2 of

2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 6556 days in filing the land acquisition appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay it has been stated as follows;

“ The 1^st Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram passed the said judgment in LAR No. 171/2003 on 9.7.2007. After the coming of the said judgment, my husband Anilkumar, the 4^th claimant therein, died on 11.1.2014. We were not aware of the full details of the case and also not well versed in the legal aspects of the same including the preferring of appeal against the said judgment being the legal heirs of Anilkumar. We have come to know about the filing of LAA No. 1543/2009 by the 4^th respondent, the passing of judgment therein by this Hon’ble Court further enhancing the land value @ Rs. 2 lakhs per Are and also the filing of LAA No. 210/2021 by the 3^rd respondent seeking such enhancement only on receiving notice in LAA No. 210/2021 recently. Thereupon, we engaged a

2026:KER:16573 counsel at Ernakulam and filed vakalath in the said LAA. ”

2. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. From the averments in the above extracted paragraph, it is clear that the impugned judgment and decree were passed on 09.07.2007, and the husband of the deponent passed away much later on 11.01.2014. For nearly about 7 years, no steps were taken to file the appeal. Further, it is candidly stated in the affidavit that the appellants later came to know about the enhancement granted in another appeal arising from the same acquisition and then only they engaged

2026:KER:16573 a counsel to file the appeal. It is evident that there was laches and negligence on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal. No satisfactory explanation is offered for the inordinate delay. Unless sufficient cause is shown the delay cannot be condoned in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . In this case, I find no sufficient cause to exercise the power under of the to condone the huge delay of 6556 days. If the delay is condoned without sufficient cause in such cases, the very purpose of law related to limitation will be defeated.

Hence, the C.M. application is rejected, consequently the Land Acquisition Appeal shall also stand rejected, as time barred.

Sd/-