Liberal condonation of delay cannot rescue gross negligence where unexplained inaction has caused abatement and restored opposing rights.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits a liberal approach to condonation only where sufficient cause is shown, but liberal construction cannot excuse gross negligence, inaction or an unexplained delay. Abatement under the CPC, and setting aside abatement, require a real and reasonable explanation; they are not mechanical exercises. Where repeated lapses and lack of diligence are recorded, and the delay has also enabled a valuable right to accrue to the other side, the court may refuse indulgence. On the facts stated, the SC held that the High Court was not justified in condoning the delay or restoring the appeal, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the inordinate delay, setting aside the abatement and dismissal, and restoring the appeal despite unexplained negligence in pursuing the proceedings and in bringing the legal representatives on record.

Analysis: The power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be exercised with a liberal approach where sufficient cause is shown, but liberal construction cannot replace the requirement of reasonableness, proper conduct and a plausible explanation for the delay. Abatement and setting aside of abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not mechanical exercises and a litigant who is grossly negligent or inactive may forfeit the indulgence of the court, particularly where delay has resulted in the accrual of a valuable right to the other side. The High Court itself recorded repeated lapses, lack of diligence and absence of any justifiable explanation, yet proceeded to condone delay and restore the appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in condoning the delay or restoring the appeal. The order allowing the applications was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned order of the High Court was reversed, leaving the appeal as abated and dismissed in consequence of the earlier default.

Ratio Decidendi: Liberal construction of limitation provisions does not permit condonation of inordinate and unexplained delay caused by gross negligence or inaction, especially where a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party and the discretion is exercised unreasonably.

---