What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Section 5 reads:
“Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
This means the court holds discretion to accept a late appeal or application if it believes the delay is justified. The applicant must show that the delay occurred despite due diligence and unavoidable circumstances.
Nature of Section 5
1. Discretionary Power of the Court
Section 5 does not confer an automatic right. It allows courts to use discretion based on facts. The applicant has no right to condonation unless the court is convinced.
2. Liberal Interpretation
Courts adopt a liberal approach, especially in cases involving substantial justice. However, the party must not act with negligence or malafide intent.
3. Application Only to Appeals and Applications
This section does not apply to suits or applications under Order XXI CPC. Therefore, if a party files a suit after limitation expires, Section 5 cannot rescue them.
4. Burden of Proof Lies on the Applicant
The person seeking condonation must prove the delay occurred due to a “sufficient cause.” Vague or casual explanations don’t work.
Scope of Section 5
Section 5 applies widely but not universally. Let’s understand where it applies and where it doesn’t.
A. Where It Applies
- Appeals from civil and criminal courts
- Applications for review or revision
- Applications for leave to appeal in higher courts
B. Where It Doesn’t Apply
- Filing of a suit
- Execution petitions under Order XXI CPC
- Applications that are explicitly excluded under special laws
C. Limit of Extension
Section 5 does not specify how long the delay may be. Even a delay of several years may be condoned if a satisfactory explanation is given.
Understanding “Sufficient Cause”
“Sufficient cause” is not defined in the Act. Courts interpret it case by case. It may include:
- Illness of the applicant
- Imprisonment or accident
- Delay in getting certified copies
- Natural calamities
- Mistaken legal advice (in some cases)
However, ignorance of the law or careless attitude does not qualify as sufficient cause.
Important Judicial Pronouncements
1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987)
The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should take a liberal approach in condoning delay to advance substantial justice. Delay should not defeat a meritorious case.
2. State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972)
The Court held that each day of delay must not be explained. A reasonable cause must be shown for the overall delay.
3. Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields (1962)
This case laid down the principle that “sufficient cause” must be genuine and not a routine excuse. Courts will not condone deliberate inaction.
4. Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan (1969)
Wrong legal advice, if given in good faith, may be accepted as a sufficient cause.
Procedure for Filing Delay Condonation Application
To seek condonation, the applicant must:
- File a separate application along with the main appeal or petition.
- Clearly state the length of delay.
- Mention all reasons and facts causing the delay.
- Attach supporting documents (medical reports, affidavits, etc.).
- Ensure the application is verified and signed.
Principles Governing Court’s Decision
- Courts look at bonafide intent.
- Length of delay is secondary to the reason behind it.
- Public interest and finality of litigation are also considered.
- Repeated or habitual delays reflect poorly on the party.
Difference Between Section 5 and Other Limitation Provisions
| Provision | Applies To | Extension Allowed? |
|---|---|---|
| Section 3 | Bars suits, appeals, applications filed after time | No |
| Section 5 | Appeals and applications (except Order XXI) | Yes, on sufficient cause |
| Section 14 | Exclusion of time spent in wrong forum | Not condonation, but exclusion |
| Section 12 | Excludes time for obtaining copies | Not condonation, but calculation aid |
Section 5 in Criminal Cases
Courts also use Section 5 in criminal cases, particularly in appeals. However, in criminal law, liberty is at stake, so courts often lean in favor of condoning the delay, especially for accused persons.
Case Study: Delay in Appeal Filing Due to COVID-19
During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts across India applied a blanket extension for filing appeals. The Supreme Court in In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) held that the pandemic justified extension across the board. This ruling showed how Section 5’s spirit was upheld even without filing individual delay applications.
Criticism and Challenges
- Overuse may delay justice and weaken finality of litigation.
- Government departments often misuse this provision by filing vague delay applications.
- Lack of uniformity in judicial interpretation.
Despite these, Section 5 remains a vital tool for ensuring fairness.
Best Practices to Avoid Rejection
- Avoid generic excuses.
- Maintain records of all communications.
- File the appeal as soon as possible.
- Consult legal counsel early.
- Provide evidence and documents to support your application.
Conclusion
Section 5 of the Limitation Act strikes a delicate balance between strict legal timelines and the demands of justice. While courts respect limitation periods, they also acknowledge that human errors and genuine hardships occur. The key lies in proving “sufficient cause” and approaching the court with clean hands.
Whether you’re a lawyer, student, or litigant, understanding Section 5 can help you avoid procedural setbacks and secure a fair trial.
Memory Code Table: “C-L-A-P-S D-J-A-P”
| Mnemonic | Essentials | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| C | Court’s Discretion | No automatic right to condonation |
| L | Liberal View Adopted | Justice over technicality |
| A | Appeals and Applications Only | No suits or execution petitions |
| P | Proof of Sufficient Cause | Burden on applicant |
| S | Scope Limits | Excludes Order XXI applications |
| D | Delay Must Be Reasonable | Excessive or unjustified delays not condoned |
| J | Judicial Precedents Important | Guides interpretation |
| A | Application Must Be Separate | Must be filed along with the main case |
| P | Pandemic Precedents Applied | Delay during COVID justified by SC |