In a significant ruling on September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, re-examined and clarified the jurisprudence relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The detailed Judgment in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025) has profound implications for litigants, particularly the State and its instrumentalities, seeking extensions for filing appeals and applications beyond the prescribed limitation period.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case arose out of a long-standing dispute over title and possession of a 9-acre land parcel in Karnataka, originally owned by the Appellant’s father. After protracted litigation, a partition decree vested absolute ownership in the Appellant. However, possession remained with Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), leading to further suits and appeals.
The KHB filed a Second Appeal in the Karnataka High Court with a delay of 3966 days seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which the High Court allowed, prompting the present Appeal before the Supreme Court.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, was called upon to address the following critical issues:
- The precise interpretation of the phrase “within such period” in Section 5 and the extent of explanation required for delay;
- The meaning and scope of “sufficient cause” for condoning delay;
- The circumstances under which an Appellate Court can interfere with the exercise of discretion in condoning delay.
- Special considerations, if any, in condoning delay by the State or public authorities.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDING
- Interpretation of ‘Within such period’
The Court undertook an exhaustive textual and contextual analysis, over-ruling earlier interpretations that limited explanation of delay only to the period after expiry of limitation. It held that:
- The phrase ‘within such period’ embraces the entire period from the moment limitation commenced until the date of filing, encompassing both the prescribed limitation and the delayed period thereafter.
- Explanation for the entire delay must be furnished, not merely the post-expiry portion.
- Meaning of ‘Sufficient cause’
The Apex Court emphasized that ‘sufficient cause’ is a flexible concept demanding a fact-specific inquiry. The Court clarified that:
- It must be a bona fide explanation supported by substantive material showing reasonable diligence on the part of the Applicant.
- It must be free from negligence, inactivity or mala fide intention.
- Discretion and Appellate interference
With respect to the aspect of interference and discretion exercised by Appellate Courts, the Apex Court clarified that:
- A Court of Appeal should not lightly interfere unless the discretion was exercised on arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse grounds.
- The material supporting “sufficient cause” must inspire confidence.
- Courts sitting in appeal must respect the factual findings of the lower courts unless there is demonstrable error or lack of evidence.
- Condonation of Delay by State and Public Authorities
The Judgment carefully re-examines how delays in court cases involving government bodies should be handled. The Apex Court observed:
- Earlier jurisprudence granted significant freedom/flexibility to the State due to bureaucratic complexities and procedural formalities.
- The Apex Court reaffirmed that in the current era of technological advancement, such latitude must be curtailed.
- The law applies equally to the State and private litigants and the State cannot claim indulgence as a matter of right.
- Delay attributable to official lethargy, negligence, or lack of bona fide effort cannot be condoned merely because the litigant is the Government.
- Certain latitude may be accorded where genuine, bona fide efforts thwart timely filing due to inherent administrative complexities.
- The Court emphasized the imperative of enforcing accountability within government agencies, including holding responsible officers liable for delays.
- Public Policy and Limitation
The Court reaffirmed the fundamental public policy underpinning limitation statutes ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ (it is in public interest to have an end to litigation). The Judgment clarified:
- Public interest is better served by enforcing limitation laws rigorously rather than condoning habitual governmental indifference.
- There must be a balance between advancing justice and maintaining certainty and finality in legal disputes.
- The rule of law mandates equality before the law, irrespective of the litigant’s identity.
DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT
- The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order condoning over a decade-long delay, stating such an enormous delay cannot be sustained without sufficient and substantial justification.
- This Judgement sends a strong message that administrative delays, negligence, or bureaucratic lethargy cannot be routinely excused, marking a firm departure from erstwhile judicial leniency towards the State.
CONCLUSION
This Judgment redefines legal expectations around delay, insisting on truthful, well-supported explanations for any delay spanning the entire limitation period and underscoring the principle that even the State must discharge its litigation responsibilities diligently and responsibly. It crystallizes the balance between procedural discipline and justice, ensuring limitation laws remain robust instruments of legal certainty while preserving access to justice in deserving cases.
Soumen Dash
(Legal Associate)
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Editor’s Comment: Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows condonation of delay only if the Applicant seeking condonation is able to prove ‘sufficient cause’. This would, in turn mean, the litigant who has approached the Court is able to show the Court a good reason as to why he or she was unable to follow the limitation period and as such seeks the permission of the Court to file the appeal or make the application beyond the prescribed period. ‘Sufficient cause’ would however mean that the litigant has been vigilant and active in understanding his/her rights and the said delay is caused for reasons beyond his/her control. It does not mean that a person behaves with great lethargy and laches and then approaches the Court at his/her convenience as is seen in the above-mentioned case. Law only protects those who are vigilant of their rights and not people who take the law for granted.
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled Legal Aspects of Export in India| Export Laws Explained| Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below: