Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Every day's delay must be properly explained - The courts emphasize that each delay should be justified with proper reasons. A pedantic approach (e.g., hours or seconds) is discouraged; instead, a rational, common-sense, pragmatic approach should be adopted. Proper explanation involves providing convincing, acceptable reasons for each day's delay. ["Gulshan Homz Pvt. Ltd. Noida Thru. Its Authorized Signatory VS Sushant Arora - Allahabad"]
Satisfactory explanation for delay is crucial - When the reasons for delay are properly explained, courts tend to adopt a pragmatic approach, considering the absence of negligence, inaction, or mala fide intent from the applicant. The explanation should be pleaded convincingly and be supported by material evidence. The attitude of the party in causing the delay is a significant factor, not just the number of days delayed. ["A. Sagunthala VS Rajathi - Madras"], ["Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Vellore VS Arumuga Mudaliyar (Died) Gnanasoundari - Madras"], ["A. Santhanadevan VS Valli - Madras"], ["V. Vinayagam (Deceased) Arutperunjothi VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Pondicherry - Madras"], ["A. S. L. Pauls College of Engineering and Technology VS M. Total Instrumentation Solutions Represented by its Proprietor M. Mazkurie Alam - Madras"], ["G. Maruthachalam S/o Late Ganapathy Gounder VS N. Jothimani W/o Late G. Natarajan - Madras"], ["Srinivasan VS Dhanabal - Madras"], ["Chitrakala VS Sathyanarayanan - Madras"], ["S. Rajamanickam VS Parvathiammal (Died) - Madras"], ["M. Dayabary (Deceased) Mounisamy VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Puducherry - Madras"], ["Vanakar Azeez Basha VS Beebee John (deceased) Sridhar - Madras"]
Each case depends on its facts and circumstances - The courts recognize that the reasons and explanations for delay vary with each case. Therefore, the sufficiency and acceptability of the explanation are judged based on the specific facts. A delay of several years can be condoned if proper reasons are provided, whereas unexplained or vague reasons lead to rejection. ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["Sri Satrughuna Adak VS State - Calcutta"], ["M.S. Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs Jai Bamleshwari Rice Industries - Bombay"]
Failure to explain delay properly leads to rejection - When the explanation is vague, incomplete, or not properly pleaded, courts are justified in refusing condonation. For example, a delay of 397 days was not properly explained, resulting in the court not condoning it. Similarly, enormous delays like 883 days or 2755 days require convincing reasons to be condoned. ["M.S. Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs Jai Bamleshwari Rice Industries - Bombay"], ["A. Sagunthala VS Rajathi - Madras"], ["Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Vellore VS Arumuga Mudaliyar (Died) Gnanasoundari - Madras"], ["V. Vinayagam (Deceased) Arutperunjothi VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Pondicherry - Madras"], ["A. S. L. Pauls College of Engineering and Technology VS M. Total Instrumentation Solutions Represented by its Proprietor M. Mazkurie Alam - Madras"], ["G. Maruthachalam S/o Late Ganapathy Gounder VS N. Jothimani W/o Late G. Natarajan - Madras"], ["Srinivasan VS Dhanabal - Madras"], ["Chitrakala VS Sathyanarayanan - Madras"], ["S. Rajamanickam VS Parvathiammal (Died) - Madras"], ["M. Dayabary (Deceased) Mounisamy VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Puducherry - Madras"], ["Vanakar Azeez Basha VS Beebee John (deceased) Sridhar - Madras"]
No strict rule on the number of days - The courts clarify that it is not the mere number of days of delay that matters but the attitude, bona fide effort, and explanation provided by the applicant. A reasonable, well-supported cause may justify even long delays. Conversely, unexplained delays are unlikely to be condoned. ["Gulshan Homz Pvt. Ltd. Noida Thru. Its Authorized Signatory VS Sushant Arora - Allahabad"], ["Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Vellore VS Arumuga Mudaliyar (Died) Gnanasoundari - Madras"], ["A. Santhanadevan VS Valli - Madras"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Proper explanation for each day's delay is essential for condonation. Courts advocate a pragmatic and common-sense approach, considering the reasons, bona fide intent, and circumstances rather than rigidly counting days. Each case's facts determine whether delay should be condoned, emphasizing the importance of convincing, acceptable, and well-pleaded reasons rather than the duration alone. When delays are properly explained, courts are inclined to condone them, fostering justice over procedural rigidity. ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR - Bombay"], ["Sri Satrughuna Adak VS State - Calcutta"]
In the fast-paced world of litigation, missing deadlines can spell disaster. But what if you have a valid reason? A common question arises: each and every day's delay to be properly explained for condonation. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, parties often seek condonation of delay to revive their claims. This blog explores whether courts insist on a day-by-day justification, drawing from landmark judgments and practical insights. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a lawyer for your case.
The cornerstone of condonation under Section 5 is 'sufficient cause.' Courts have repeatedly emphasized that each and every day's delay must be properly explained, particularly in cases of significant delays. As held in State of Kerala, Represented By The Additional Public Prosecutor vs Adoor Prakash, S/O.Kunhiraman - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2471, Every days delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made, but emphasizes that the explanation should be reasonable and sufficient for each day, especially in cases involving large delays.
This principle prevents casual applications and ensures accountability. However, it's not always rigidly pedantic. Courts balance strictness with justice, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approachDhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021. The expression 'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable courts to apply law in a meaningful manner which serves ends of justice Dhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021.
Inordinate delays without proper day-by-day accounts often fail. In Brijesh Kumar VS State of Haryana - 2014 2 Supreme 717, a delay of over ten years was refused due to lack of sufficient reasons. Similarly, Union Of India VS Nripen Sarma - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 187 and D. Gopinathan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2007 1 Supreme 510 stress that delay cannot be condoned without proper, satisfactory, and convincing reasons for each day, especially when the delay is significant.
Other precedents reinforce this:- Karvy Stock Broking Limited VS State of Jharkhand - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 906: It is trite that each and every days delay has to be explained.- D. Sundararajan VS G. Hemalatha - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2498: It is a settled principle of law that length of delay is immaterial, but cogent and convincing reason must be assigned... each and every day delay should be explained properly.- Saraswathi Kailasam VS Madras Race Club, Rep. by its Secretary, Guindy, Chennai - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2858: For a 2630-day delay, the court noted, Each and every day's delay has not been properly explained... an utterly lackadaisical approach was adopted.- National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS S. Sarada - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5863: It is well established that every day's delay has to be explained properly and there must be reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay.- Krishnamoorthy VS Dheivaneethi - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 631: It is the cardinal principal that each and every days delay should be explained properly by the petitioner.
These cases show courts expect diligence. In MURLIDHAR S/O DURGAJI SAKHARKAR vs STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. MOUDA P.S. AND ANR, a nearly two-year delay was criticized as not at all properly explained, highlighting the need for just and sufficient reasons.
Not all rulings are harsh. Courts often lean liberal when circumstances warrant. In Dhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021, a pragmatic view considers overall facts rather than rigidly scrutinizing each day. Administrative or bureaucratic hurdles may justify some leeway Dhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021, but still require reasonable detail S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104: When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide.
For instance:- In M/S. PBC INTERNATIONAL vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29745, a 64-day delay in a statutory appeal was considered alongside a condonation petition.- SHYAM DHANIVSDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DELHI involved a 1300-day delay application, underscoring the need for scrutiny.- Motor Vehicles cases like MANJU ANANDAKUTTAN vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - 2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37911 direct authorities to consider delay petitions timely, balancing procedural fairness.
Even in complex scenarios, such as government takeovers in Saraswathi Kailasam VS Madras Race Club, Rep. by its Secretary, Guindy, Chennai - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 2858, lethargy led to rejection, but valid systemic issues might sway outcomes.
While the 'each day' rule holds, exceptions exist:- Short Delays: Easily condoned if broadly reasonable State of Kerala, Represented By The Additional Public Prosecutor vs Adoor Prakash, S/O.Kunhiraman - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2471.- Bureaucratic Delays: Acceptable to an extent, but not blanket excuses National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS S. Sarada - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5863.- Prejudice to Opposite Party: Courts weigh harm caused by delay.- Nature of Case: Merits-based hearing favored unless 'hopelessly unjustified' Thirunagalingam VS Lingeswaran - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 814.
In S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104, discretion is exercised cautiously to avoid prolonging litigation indefinitely, confirming fair orders.
To boost condonation chances:1. Document Day-by-Day: Prepare affidavits detailing each period—e.g., 'Days 1-10: Awaiting documents; Days 11-20: Medical issues with proof.'2. File Promptly: Avoid inordinate delays; act on knowledge of proceedings.3. Gather Evidence: Medical certificates, correspondence, or admin records strengthen claims.4. Emphasize Bona Fides: Show no negligence S. Dinakaran VS K. Varadan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 104.5. Seek Early Advice: Lawyers can craft compelling applications.
Courts appreciate proactive steps, as in permit renewals where pending condonation aids timely decisions MANJU ANANDAKUTTAN vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - 2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37911.
Generally, yes—each and every day's delay must be properly explained for condonation, especially for lengthy periods. Yet, Indian courts typically adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented lens, condoning where reasons satisfy 'sufficient cause' Dhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021. Failure invites rejection, as seen across precedents.
Key Takeaways:- Provide detailed, convincing explanations.- Expect stricter scrutiny for inordinate delays.- Leverage liberal discretion with strong evidence.
Stay vigilant in litigation timelines. For tailored guidance, consult a qualified advocate. References include State of Kerala, Represented By The Additional Public Prosecutor vs Adoor Prakash, S/O.Kunhiraman - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2471, Dhiraj Singh VS Haryana State - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1021, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS VS MANOHAR BROS. (CAPACITORS) - 2003 0 Supreme(SC) 1086, and others cited.
#CondonationOfDelay #LimitationAct #LegalDelay
explained. ... The delay which is nearly two years is not at all properly By way of present application, the applicant is seeking condanation ... of delay of one year and 11 months in filing the It is not in dispute that if there are just and sufficient reasons, the delay
He filed Ext.P2 statutory appeal along with a stay petition, besides a delay condonation petition. The delay is said to be 64 days. ... EXHIBIT P3 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.30 AND DELAY CONDANATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN P2 APPEALS FOR THE This Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, disposes of this writ petition holding that the 2nd respondent will consider the interlocutory applications, including the delay
of delay. ... contained therein so as to accede to the prayer of the review- petitioners for condanation ... Rejection of application for condonation of delay entails rejection of review petition also. ... Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top
2403/2020 has been filed seeking condanation of delay of 1300 days in filing of the accompanying Original Application. 2.
The revisional application has been filed with delay of more than one month without stating the Number of days of delay and explaining each day's delay. ... Besides the instant application is misconceived and not maintainable in law in view of the prayer for composite Rule for condonation in delay in filing the revisional application and setting aside the impugned order as unless the application for condanation of delay is allowed the question of considering ... The e....
Upon perusal of paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 reproduced above, absolutely, it does not show that the applicant has explained the delay properly. ... The present application is for condonation of delay of 397 days in preferring the criminal appeal. ... Further, already the condonation of delay application is filed to condone the delay of 397 days. 8. ... Under such circumstances, it is necessary to see whether the applicant in his application has shown suff....
In view of the fact that the petitioner's application for renewal of regular permit supported by the petition for condanation of delay is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, it is only appropriate that the said authority considers the petitioner's application for temporary permit also. ... However, he has later on, submitted an application accompanied by a petition for condonation of the delay in submitting the same. The renewal application as well as the petition for condonation of delay are pending considerati....
When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the Applicant. 10. ... Further, the issue involved in this case is whether the delay in filing a petition has been properly explained and sufficient cause has been shown for the delay or not and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the revision petitio....
When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the Applicant. 10. ... Further, the issue involved in this case is whether the delay in filing a petition has been properly explained and sufficient cause has been shown for the delay or not and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the revision petitio....
The delay in the present case is enormous and not explained properly. ... When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the Applicant. 10. ... Further, the issue involved in this case is whether the delay in filing a petition has been properly explained and sufficient caus....
It is trite that each and every days delay has to be explained.
8. It is a settled principle of law that length of delay is immaterial, but cogent and convincing reason must be assigned. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the revision petitioner to convince the Court with sufficient and bonafide reasons for the delay. Further each and every day delay should be explained properly.
Therefore, the tenant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the enormous delay of 2630 days, in seeking to restore the appeal in RCA. Each and every day's delay has not been properly explained. It is the case of the landlord that even after all of these events occurred, no steps were taken by the tenant and an utterly lackadaisical approach was adopted and the present restoration petition has been filed only in December 2005, for which there is absolutely no explanation.
In this case except the averment that the administrative delay cannot be avoided, there is no acceptable reason for the delay, with all particulars. We are not happy with the reasoning given in para 5 of the affidavit wherein it is stated 'I most respectfully submit that in a government undertaking like the Petitioner administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one'. It is well established that every day's delay has to be explained properly and there must be reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the revision. Absolutely there is no acceptable reasoning given in the affidavit to the application to condone the delay of 970 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. It is the cardinal principal that each and every days delay should be explained properly by the petitioner. But having waited till the disposal of I.A.No.2093 of 2007 in O.S.No.355 of 2003 by the District Munsif, Viruthachalam, now it is too late for the revision petitioner to urge before this Court that the learned District Munsif, V....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
