Condonation of Delay Requires Sufficient Cause, and inordinate delay demands strict scrutiny of diligence and explanation.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay only on proof of sufficient cause, and the test remains fact-specific. While short delays may attract a liberal approach, an inordinate delay requires stricter scrutiny. Here, the explanation that counsel misplaced the order and the matter went unnoticed for a long period was found unconvincing, particularly because the record showed repeated non-pursuit of the matter and no credible material of diligence or unavoidable circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the 549-day delay, and the refusal to restore the appeal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant established sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 549 days in filing the restoration application under the law of limitation.

Analysis: The governing principle under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that delay may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown, and the test is fact-specific. A liberal approach may be adopted in cases of short delay, but an inordinate delay calls for stricter scrutiny. On the facts, the explanation that the counsel misplaced the order and the matter remained unnoticed for a long period was found unconvincing. The record showed repeated non-pursuit of the matter, 14 opportunities had already been granted earlier, and no credible material established diligence or unavoidable circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The refusal to restore the appeal was upheld and the challenge failed.

---