Delay condonation requires sufficient cause; parity cannot justify repeating an erroneous order or bypassing limitation.

Condonation of a 5-1/2 year delay in land acquisition appeals required a bona fide, satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; illness of one appellant, without more, did not meet that standard. Negligence, inaction, lack of diligence, and want of bona fides defeat such relief, so the delay was not condoned and the appeals remained time-barred. Parity with earlier orders could not assist the appellants because Article 14 does not permit negative equality or repetition of an erroneous condonation order in another case. The challenge to the refusal to condone delay therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of about 5-1/2 years in filing the land acquisition appeals ought to have been condoned on the basis of sufficient cause, and whether parity with earlier orders condoning delay could justify interference.

Analysis: The appeals were filed long after the limitation period and the only explanation offered was illness of one appellant. The governing test under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause, meaning an adequate and bona fide reason that prevented timely action; negligence, inaction, want of bona fides, or lack of diligence defeats such relief. The Court also reiterated that Article 14 does not permit negative equality or perpetuation of an illegal or erroneous order passed in another case. Limitation is founded on public policy and must be applied with rigour when the statute so requires, and courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds by imposing conditions inconsistent with the statute.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the challenge based on earlier allegedly erroneous condonation orders failed; the appellants were not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeals remained barred by limitation and were dismissed, with the High Court's refusal to condone delay left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay can be granted only on a proved sufficient cause showing bona fide diligence, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to repeat an illegality or to claim parity with an erroneous order in another case.

---