Section 5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court Says Length Of Delay Less Important Than Cause

The Supreme Court has said courts should adopt a liberal approach towards administrative delays by the State in filing appeals, provided the causes are genuine, bona fide and not mala fide, as the State acts through an impersonal machinery.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi emphasised that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic and must be applied in a pragmatic, justice-oriented manner rather than a pedantic one.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows courts to condone delays in filing appeals or applications after the prescribed limitation period if the applicant can show sufficient cause for not filing them on time.

Dealing with an appeal filed by UP Cooperative Federation Limited, Court held that the administrative delay caused by the Managing Director's engagement as an election observer constituted sufficient cause.

Court was hearing a challenge to the dismissal of two intra-court appeals by the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to condone a delay of 130 days on the ground that the cause for delay had not been properly explained and was not satisfactory.

Court condoned 130-day delay

The Bench held that the delay was caused by genuine administrative constraints and was not intentional or mala fide.

Two writ petitions had been filed by the respondents before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, challenging an office memorandum dated July 4, 2018 issued by the UP Co-operative Federation Limited. The petitions were allowed by a judgment dated February 29, 2024.

A contempt petition was subsequently filed alleging non-compliance with the judgment. The Federation also filed intra-court appeals before a division bench along with applications seeking condonation of delay.

A contempt notice was issued for alleged wilful disobedience. The Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings until the appeals were decided by the division bench.

The division bench, however, dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay.

Turning to whether the delay ought to have been condoned, the Supreme Court said no litigant would benefit by approaching the courts belatedly.

Court emphasised that while considering an application for condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay but the cause for the delay that is of paramount consideration.

“However, short the delay may be, if the cause shown does not inspire confidence or it is not in the proximity of truth, the cause shown for delay cannot be accepted. Even, if the length of delay is too long and the cause shown is sufficient, as prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and if it would fall within ‘sufficient cause’, irrespective of the length of delay, same deserves to be condoned,” the Bench said.

Genuine administrative delays can justify condonation

The Bench pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a certain amount of latitude should be extended in appeals filed by the State where delays occur due to administrative reasons.

Where such reasons are genuine, bona fide and without any mala fide intention, the cause deserves to be condoned, it said.

“When the officials who man the process of filing of the appeals does not exhibit lethargy, the cause shown for administrative delay cannot be ignored and right cause cannot be nipped at the bud by dismissing it on the technical ground of delay. If the cause shown is sufficient, the delay deserves to be condoned,” the Bench said.

In the present case, Court noted that the prime cause for the delay was administrative constraints.

The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay stated that the competent authority had to take a decision on filing the appeal against the February 29, 2024 judgment. The Managing Director was also discharging duties as an election observer in Gujarat during the Lok Sabha elections between March and May 2024.

Court further noted that the Allahabad High Court remained closed for summer vacation in June 2024. After returning from election duty, the Managing Director perused the judgment and, after obtaining legal opinion, the appeal was filed on July 26, 2024.

“Thus, it can be seen that the Managing Director of the appellant Federation had been deputed as an election observer for the Lok Sabha Election, 2024 and for want of his administrative approval, the delay seems to have occasioned. The cause shown for the delay, thus cannot be construed as mala fide or the said delay being intentional,” the Bench held.

Court held that the cause shown was in the proximity of truth and fell within the ambit of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The 130-day delay, therefore, ought to have been condoned, it opined.

Court consequently set aside the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay.

However, noting that the writ applicants had been forced to appear before the high court and the Supreme Court to oppose the application and had incurred time and expense, Court directed the Federation to compensate them.

The appellant was directed to pay costs of Rs 2,000 to each of the 62 writ applicants within four weeks.

Court further directed that the appeals would be taken up and heard on merits only upon production of proof of payment or deposit of the costs.

It clarified that the high court would decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, subject to cooperation by the advocates.

The contempt proceedings would remain stayed during the pendency of the appeals, Court ordered.

Case Title: UP Cooperative Federation Limited Vs Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi & Ors

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026