The sufficiency of cause for condoning delay in filing a review petition is a judicial discretion dependent on the presented reasons and must not be taken lightly.

ORDER :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed by the review petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 250 days in filing the Review Petition No.1227/2025 impugning the judgment in W.A.No.1858 of 2024 dated 09.12.2024

2. The reasons for the delay in filing the review petition are stated in paragraphs 3 and 4, which read as follows:

“3. This Hon'ble Court passed the judgment on 09.12.2024.

Online application for certified copy of the judgment was submitted and delivered only on 15.09.2025. The Review Petition ought to have been filed without delay on or before 08.01.2025. The Review Petition filed only on 15.09.2025. Thus there is a delay of 250 days in filing the Review Petition.

4. It is submitted that following the directions contained in the impugned judgment, the Bank has provided sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the 7th respondent to bring a private buyer. The 7th respondent neither brought a private buyer nor remitted any single penny towards the loan account. The review petitioner Bank also provided another opportunity by issuing a demand notice dated 13.08.2025 to the 7th respondent to clear off the entire liability. Even after providing sufficient opportunities, the 7th respondent did not bring a private buyer. As per the present market value of the property, even auctioning the entire property would not be sufficient to wipe off the outstanding liability. It would adversely affect the financial health of the Bank. Also, the filing of the review petition is inevitable because the presiding Judge is retiring from office. Hence there is a delay of 250 days in filing the Review Petition. The delay was not willful and deliberate.”

3. Sri. Manumon A, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, vehemently opposed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and filed a detailed counter.

4. Smt. Nisha George, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there are sufficient reasons for the condonation of the delay. The delay is not wilful and there is no laches or inaction on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel seeks condonation of the delay and to consider the review petition on merits.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent would submit that there are no sufficient reasons for the condonation of the delay of 250 days. Each day's delay is to be explained specifically by the petitioner. No such attempt was made by the petitioner. The reasons stated for the condonation of delay are vague and evasive.

6. We have heard the submissions of Smt. Nisha George, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manumon, learned counsel for the party respondents.

7. The only point that arises for our consideration is whether there is sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay.

8. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer the principles laid down by the Apex Court on this point. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors., 1(2013) 12 SCC 649, the Apex Court elucidated the legal principles that must be taken into account when adjudicating an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment read as follows:-

“21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

21.1.(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

21.2.(ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

21.3.(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

21.4.(iv)No presumptio