Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the fast-paced world of litigation, missing a filing deadline can spell disaster for your case. But what if you're an elderly litigant struggling to gather funds for court fees or counsel? A common question arises: Can a first appeal filed with delay on the ground of age and mobilization of funds be allowed? Under India's Limitation Act, courts often apply a liberal lens to such pleas, but success hinges on credibility and evidence. This post dives into judicial precedents, key principles, and practical advice to help you navigate this nuanced area.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, empowers courts to condone delays if the appellant shows sufficient cause. There's no rigid formula—courts assess each case on merits, favoring a liberal approach for genuine hardships, especially for vulnerable parties like the elderly or those in poverty. However, explanations must be believable, supported by evidence, and free from mala fides.
Old age (e.g., 70+ years) paired with illness or unawareness frequently qualifies as sufficient cause. Similarly, difficulties in mobilizing funds due to poverty or hand-to-mouth living can justify delays, provided averments ring true. Yet, courts reject vague claims lacking medical records, income proofs, or day-wise explanations. (It is a common knowledge that immediately after the effect of demonetization, it was difficult to mobilize the fund. M/S MYLAPORE HINDU PERMANENT vs M. JANAKIRAMAN) (Even assuming that due to financial crisis, she could not mobilize the fund, she could have very well filed pauper petition, but she did not do so. R.M.ANANTHAN, vs SHANTHI)
Indian courts have repeatedly condoned delays in first appeals (or analogous proceedings) when old age impaired prompt action and financial constraints delayed counsel engagement or fee payments.
Additional contexts reinforce this. For instance, post-demonetization fund shortages led to condoning a 233-day delay after initial deficit court fee filing. M/S MYLAPORE HINDU PERMANENT vs M. JANAKIRAMAN Similarly, accidents and Covid-19 pandemics were cited alongside fund mobilization issues for an 1181-day delay condonation plea. JAYAPAL vs MAHADEVAN - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12860JAYAPAL vs MAHADEVAN
Not all claims succeed. Courts scrutinize for substantiation, rejecting even elderly appellants' pleas if explanations falter.
Financial excuses also flop without alternatives like pauper applications. (Even assuming that due to financial crisis, she could not mobilize the fund, she could have very well filed pauper petition... R.M.ANANTHAN, vs SHANTHI)
Sufficient cause means adequate grounds, with liberal construction for short delays but stricter for inordinate ones. Courts prioritize merits over technical bars absent dilatory tactics. Singh Enterprises VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2007 8 Supreme 533Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries VS Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation - 2010 2 Supreme 115 For old age or poverty, leniency avoids curtailing rights, but demands month-to-month explanations and clean hands. M Venkat Reddy vs M Sathi Reddy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16276Nagar Nigam, Kota VS Kastoori Bai - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 2307
Key Exceptions:- Inordinate unexplained delays: 137 days without details rejected Nagar Nigam, Kota VS Kastoori Bai - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 2307; over 4 years with tampered applications dismissed Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries VS Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation - 2010 2 Supreme 115.- Statutory limits: No condonation beyond caps (e.g., 30 days post-60 in excise appeals) Singh Enterprises VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2007 8 Supreme 533.- Clean hands required: False averments or no proof (e.g., missing medical certificates) doom claims, even for 70+ appellants Bakkam Rajaveeru @ Rajeeru VS Midtbapalli Venkatalah - 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 1397Parju Ram VS Bhag Singh - 2014 0 Supreme(HP) 1229.- Government cases get some leeway but face costs for casualness State of Madhya Pradesh VS Bherulal - 2021 1 Supreme 487.
In consumer disputes, prolonged delays (e.g., 30 years for flat allotment) signal service deficiency, but fund issues in appeals still need proof. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Desh Raj - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7424 (Delay was due to lack of financial support under Plan funds from DDA and the inability to mobilize adequate funds. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Desh Raj - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7424)
To bolster your condonation application:1. File with a detailed affidavit explaining day-wise delays.2. Attach medical records for age-related illnesses, income proofs for fund paucity, and counsel's role.3. Offer to pay costs to show bona fides.4. Cite liberal precedents emphasizing merits: old age/poverty shouldn't bar justice. (the learned first appellate court has committed error... application under Section 5... deserves to be allowed and delay... condoned. BHANI DEVI VS PHOOLCHAND - 2017 Supreme(Raj) 2095)5. Explore alternatives like pauper petitions if funds are tight.
Discretionary powers under Section 149 CPC for court fees also aid: Discretionary power u/s 149 should be exercised in favour of litigant unless he acts mala fide. MANOHARAN VS SIVARAJAN - 2013 8 Supreme 408
Generally, courts may condone delays in first appeals for old age and fund mobilization if genuinely proven, promoting access to justice. However, success demands robust evidence—vague pleas risk rejection. Always consult a lawyer for case-specific strategy, as this is not legal advice.
Takeaways:- Liberal for credible cases: Age + illness or poverty often wins.- Evidence is king: Documents prevent dismissal.- Act promptly: Shorter delays fare better.
Stay informed on evolving precedents to safeguard your rights.
References:1. M Venkat Reddy vs M Sathi Reddy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16276 - Liberal test for age/illness.2. Dwarika Mahto VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 787 - Funds/poverty in FAO.3. Abdul Hafeez VS State Bank of Hyderabad - Consumer (2013) - Rejection benchmarks.4. And others as cited.
#CondonationOfDelay, #LimitationAct, #FirstAppeal
The fact that the appeal was filed in time is not in dispute. ... It is a common knowledge that immediately after the effect of demonetization, it was difficult to mobilize the fund. ... Thereafter, the appeal was represented with delay of 233 days along with correct fee. ... When the appeal was presented on 19.10.2016 before the first appellate court, it was filed with deficit Court fee and therefore, it was r....
But the petitioner was not able to mobilize the fund within 60 days, there was some delay in mobilizing the fund and finally, she was able to mobilize the fund in January 2023 and she has p style ... Accordingly, the petition is allowed. ... Act and imposed fine of Rs.9,05,000/- and in appeal, there was a direction of the First /p ... amount, because there is delay of six months in depositing the amoun....
Appln No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 271 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. ... Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ... The first respondent attained the age of majority on 24.12.2....
Challenging the dismissal of the appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2018, the defendants filed the present second appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 978 days in filing the second appeal. ... As already pointed out, the reasons canvassed for the delay are that the first petitioner was suffering from ailments due to her old age; that her husband first defendant had passed away on 18.02.2024, subsequent to the judgment....
Even assuming that due to financial crisis, she could not mobilize the fund, she could have very well filed pauper petition, but she did not do so. ... As far as the financial crisis is concerned, the first respondent has stated that she could not mobilize the fund for paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court, dated 30.10.2012 and to pay the Court fee for filing the appeal. ... Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 had #HL_STA....
The above appeal has to be filed on or before 12.12.2016. But due to the accident and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not able to mobilize the fund in time, after mobilizing the fund, he came to Madurai and handed over the case papers to the Advocate. ... to condone the delay of 1181 days in filing the appeal. ... But due to the accident and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not able to mobilize the fund....
The above appeal has to be filed on or before 12.12.2016. ... to condone the delay of 1181 days in filing the appeal. ... Prayer in CMA(MD)SR.No.37451 of 2020: Appeal filed under Section 173 came to Madurai and handed over the case papers to the Advocate. ... the fund in time, after mobilizing the fund, he came to Madurai and handed over the case p style="position:absolute;white-space
The respondent challenged this order before the State Commission in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010. ... Delay was due to lack of financial support under Plan funds from DDA and the inability to mobilize adequate funds. 7570 flats were constructed between 1980-87 and 3222 between 1988-90. ... In view of the reasons given above, appeal is allowed. Orders dated 12.4.2010 passed by the District Forum, Central (Kashmere Gate) Delhi are set aside. ... Petition partly allowed.....
The respondent challenged this order before the State Commission in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010. ... In view of the reasons given above, appeal is allowed. Orders dated 12.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Central (Kashmere Gate) Delhi are set aside. ... Delay was due to lack of financial support under Plan funds from DDA and the inability to mobilize adequate funds. 7570 flats were constructed between 1980-87 and 3222 between 1988-90. ... First Appeal#....
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010 dated 21.04.2016 setting aside the order of the District Forum (Central), Delhi (in short, ‘ ... Those who applied for the allotment of the house at the age of 60 years, have now reached the age of 90 years. Nobody knows as to how many applicants are alive as on date and how many died waiting for a rood on their heads.
The substantial question of law framed by this Court is decided accordingly. 8. In view of the above, the learned first appellate court has committed error and illegality in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants on the ground of delay and the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed before the first appellate court deserves to be allowed and delay in filing appeal deserves to be condoned.
10. Mr Puneet Taneja, the learned counsel appearing for PHHL assailed the award in respect of recovery of liquidated damages principally on four fronts. Secondly, he submitted that the finding of the arbitrator that the Jetty at Havelock Island was not ready was erroneous. First, he contended that liquidated damages were based on failure of Maritime to mobilize the aircraft and the delay was admitted. He submitted that the delay in mobilization resulted in a loss to PHHL since valuable period of almost two months of the tourist season was lost.
First Appeal filed by the OPs was dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties preferred First Appeals before this Commission.
The order of Consolidation Officer was not liable to be set aside. The appeal was filed with inordinate delay of about 26 years. In any case, Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision of respondent-3 and set aside the remand order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and also directed for lodging F.I.R.
This appeal was filed on 30.3.2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. She also filed another application praying that the question of delay be decided first, as a preliminary issue. 6. Subsequent to the order dated 9.3.2007, respondent No. 3 preferred a time-barred appeal against the order dated 14.4.1994 before the SOC. The petitioner filed her objection to this application for condonation of delay.
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
