Sufficient-cause test under Section 5 is individual and discretionary; Article 136 discretion guided but not bound by appellate principles

SC held that the test of "sufficient cause" for condonation under Section 5 is individualistic and discretionary; no fixed categories exist and prosecution of a review application cannot be universally ruled out as insufficient. In exercising Article 136 discretion the Court may be guided by appellate principles but is not bound by them. On the facts, the review was filed within time and the HC re-examined the matter after notice to the respondent, so delay was condoned and the matter was directed to be listed for admission along with the pending IA.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a special leave petition due to the pendency of a Review Application.

The judgment involves a special leave petition filed against a judgment of the Madras High Court. The petitioner filed a Review Application, which was rejected, leading to a delay of 568 days in filing the special leave petition. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay. The Court raised a query regarding whether the prosecution of Review Proceedings could be considered a sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court noted a divergence of opinion on this issue and sought assistance from senior counsel. The Court analyzed the dichotomy between appellate jurisdiction and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that the filing of a Review Petition is not an impediment to filing a special leave petition. The Court highlighted that the concept of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 is individualistic and not subject to a standard test. Each case must be examined based on whether the delay is adequately explained and whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. The Court clarified that the prosecution of Review Proceedings could be a sufficient cause for delay under Section 5. The judgment emphasized that the Court has discretion to decide on condoning delays based on the circumstances of each case.

The Court further discussed the specific case at hand, where the main judgment and Order were challenged, and a delay in filing the special leave petition was sought to be condoned. It was noted that the Review Application was filed within the prescribed time and duly examined by the High Court. The Court directed the matter to be listed for admission along with the condonation of delay application. The judgment concluded by appreciating the assistance provided by the senior counsel in the case.

---