Condonation of Delay: vague explanation for inordinate delay failed to establish sufficient cause, leaving the review petition time barred.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay may be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause, with a liberal approach for short delay and a stricter scrutiny where delay is inordinate. The explanation for the 1,127-day delay in filing the review petition was found vague, unsupported by a proper sequence of events, and lacking particulars showing that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution. Sufficient cause was therefore not established, the condonation application was dismissed, and the review petition was held time barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1127 days in filing the review petition.

Analysis: Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay can be condoned only when the applicant establishes sufficient cause for not approaching the court within time. The expression is elastic and must be applied on the facts of each case, with a liberal approach in cases of short delay and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. The explanation offered for the long delay was found to be vague and unsupported by a proper sequence of events, and no particulars were furnished to show that the delay was unavoidable despite due care and caution.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not made out, and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as time barred.

---