The requirement of showing sufficient cause is crucial for the condonation of delays in legal proceedings.

Dated : 25.02.2026

ORDER (ORAL)

1. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 182 days (181 days as per the Appellant) in filing this Appeal. The Appellant thus filed IA No. 1974 of 2026 seeking delay condonation. In the said IA, it is contended that the Appellant is a senior citizen residing at Amritsar, Punjab. The Appellant was represented before the State Commission by a local counsel and the complaint was partly allowed. However, being aggrieved by the quantum of relief granted, the Appellant desired to prefer this Appeal seeking enhancement of the reliefs. In view of the partial relief granted, the Appellant took some time to consult the counsel who appears before the State Commission and to seek legal advice with regard to the advisability and prospects of filing this Appeal. Thereafter, the record of the case was handed over to the present counsel for the Appellant at New Delhi in October 2025. Further time was consumed in procuring and collating the requisite documents and records necessary. The delay is neither deliberate nor willful, but solely on account of the aforementioned bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. The Applicant contended that the delay was due to sufficient cause, in spite of due procedure having been followed by the Applicant. The delay in filing the First Appeal has arisen on account of bona fide circumstances and not due to any fault, omission, or negligence on the part of the Applicant herein. Earnest efforts had been made by the Applicant to expedite the process at various stages of finalising the accompanying First Appeal within the earliest possible time. He further submitted that in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy , (1998) 7 SCC 123 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of limitation and Condonation of delay, observing as follows:

"The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal inquiry. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy”.

2. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that when it is found on record that the party has not acted in a mala fide manner but the reasons explained are factually correct, then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. Whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, cause of substantial justice has to be preferred Justice oriented approach has to be taken by a Court while deciding the matter for condonation of delay. He requested that the delay in filing the First Appeal may be kindly condoned. Further, reliance is placed on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Sharma v. Business Park Town Planners Ltd. , Civil Appeal No. 3988 of 2023, decided on 24.09.2025. That the present Application is being bonafide in the interest of justice.

3. The present First Appeal is against the order of the State Commission dated 19.05.2025. The limitation for filing of the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days. However, the period of limitation would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Appellant i.e. 19.05.2025. While the limitation lapsed on 17.06.2025, however, the pre