A court should not condone inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the applicant fails to provide a bona fide, satisfactory explanation, and the delay demonstrates gross negligence or total inaction rather than reasonable diligence.

Headnote:The petitioner filed an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone a significant delay of 1765 days in preferring a criminal revision against a conviction under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court observed that while liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” is intended for substantial justice, the petitioner’s explanation citing lack of funds did not demonstrate acceptable diligence, reflecting total negligence and inaction. The core issue was whether an inordinate and unexplained delay of over four years constitutes “sufficient cause” under S.5 of the Limitation Act. The court reasoned that while the law of limitation should not destroy substantive rights, it remains a statutory mandate founded on public policy to ensure finality in litigation. Relying on established precedents, the court affirmed that discretion to condone delay requires proof of bona fide efforts and absence of gross negligence, which were absent here. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the criminal revision petition was rejected.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition for condonation of delay and the underlying criminal revision case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court evaluates whether the lack of funds provides sufficient cause for an inordinate delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. discussion on judicial principles of limitation, balance of justice, and the duty to demonstrate diligence. (Para 11)

Prayer:- This Crl.MP.No.9506 of 2026 is filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1765 days in preferring the Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026.

Prayer:- This Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026 is filed, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the judgement passed in Crl.A.No.185 of 2018, passed by the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, dated 06.12.2021, confirming the judgement passed in CC.No.92 of 2017, dated 18.09.2018, passed by the FTC (Magistrate Level), Ambattur and convicting the Petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven months and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

ORDER

1.This Crl.MP.No.9506 of 2026 is filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1765 days in preferring the Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026.

2.This Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026 is filed, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the judgement passed in Crl.A.No.185 of 2018, passed by the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, dated 06.12.2021, confirming the judgement passed in CC.No.92 of 2017, dated 18.09.2018, passed by the FTC (Magistrate Level), Ambattur and convicting the Petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven months and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

3.The facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed CC.No.92 of 2017 before the FTC, Ambattur, for recovery of money in respect of dishonour of cheque against the Petitioner. By the judgement dated 18.09.2018, the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven months and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The lower appellate court confirmed the said judgement of the Trial Court by the impugned judgement, dated 06.12.2021 in Crl.A.No.185 of 2018. As against the same, the Petitioner had preferred Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026, along with the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 1765 days, in preferring the above Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026.

4.This Court heard Mr.Adinarayana Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 1765 days in preferring the above Criminal Revision Case had occurred due to lack of funds for preferring the Criminal Revision Case and that the said delay is neither deliberate nor willful and hence, the learned Counsel prays this Court to allow this Petition, by condoning the delay in preferring the Criminal Revision Case, in the interest of justice.

6.This Court has given its careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7.The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 1765 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case.

8.The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is 90 days from the date of the impugned order, as stipulated under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the Criminal Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 1765 days. However, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is empowered to condone the delay if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not preferring the revision within the prescribed limitation pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASShamim Ahmed, JMeenakshi – AppellantVersusJayarani – RespondentCrl.MP.No.9506 of 2026 | Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026

A court should not condone inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the applicant fails to provide a bona fide, satisfactory explanation, and the delay demonstrates gross negligence or total inaction rather than reasonable diligence.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Shamim Ahmed, J
Meenakshi – Appellant
Versus
Jayarani – Respondent
Crl.MP.No.9506 of 2026 | Crl.RC.SR.No.18446 of 2026