Section 5 Limitation Act| Delay in Appeal Can Be Condoned Unless Special Law Expressly Bars It: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows courts to condone delay on showing sufficient cause, applies to appeals filed under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, as the statute neither expressly nor by necessary implication excludes its operation.

A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed an appeal filed by Jittu Yadav and set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment dated October 16, 2025.

The high court had refused to interfere with the appellate authority's decision dismissing Yadav's appeal against an externment order passed by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period.

Why did the Supreme Court hold that delay can be condoned?

The appellant argued that although Section 9 of the Adhiniyam prescribes a 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal, it neither provides a mechanism for condoning delay nor expressly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

It was further contended that the Adhiniyam does not prescribe any outer limit up to which delay can be condoned. Therefore, in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions, Section 5 would apply because its operation has not been specifically excluded.

The State, however, argued that the appeal had been filed around 50 days after the externment order and was therefore rightly held to be barred by limitation. It also pointed out that the appellant had not filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay before the appellate authority.

Examining the issue, the Supreme Court reiterated that where a special statute prescribes a limitation period different from that provided under the Limitation Act, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, would continue to apply unless they are expressly or impliedly excluded.

"Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, which merely prescribes that an appeal 'may be filed within thirty days from the date of such order' and is silent on any bar on condonation beyond that period, does not disclose any such exclusion, express or implied, and therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to condone delay in filing appeals under Section 9," Court held.

Appeal against externment order is an important safeguard

The Bench observed that an appeal under Section 9 against an externment order is a crucial procedural safeguard because such orders have serious civil, criminal and constitutional consequences affecting a person's liberty, freedom of movement, livelihood and reputation.

"In such context, and in the absence of clear statutory command to the contrary, the appellate remedy should not be defeated on mere technicalities of limitation, and courts should adopt an interpretation that preserves access to appeal and advances substantial justice rather than one that extinguishes the remedy for marginal delay, particularly where sufficient cause can be shown," the Bench said.

Court further explained that the expression "expressly excluded" in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act has, through judicial interpretation, been understood to include exclusion by necessary implication based on the language, object, scheme and structure of a special statute.

However, it clarified that the exclusion of Section 5 cannot be inferred merely because a special law prescribes its own limitation period. Such exclusion can be presumed only where the statute contains clear restrictive language, such as "but not thereafter" or "not exceeding... days", or creates a self-contained scheme indicating that the prescribed limitation period is absolute and cannot be extended.

Relief Granted

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the appellant's appeal before the State Government. It directed the appellate authority to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: Jittu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026