Limitation and condonation of delay under special law require a reasoned finding on sufficient cause before a delayed appeal is entertained.

An appeal under the Karnataka Zilla Parishads Act was subject to a 30-day limitation under the relevant rules, and the Court held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act attracts Section 5 to a special or local law regime unless expressly excluded. A delayed appeal may therefore be entertained only if the appellate authority applies its mind to limitation and records a reasoned finding on sufficient cause for the delay. Because no such exercise or finding was made, the appellate orders were held unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 273 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, governed by Rule 2 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Limitation for Appeals) Rules, 1985, could be entertained after expiry of the prescribed period by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 through Section 29(2) of that Act, and whether the appellate order was vitiated for want of consideration of limitation and sufficient cause.

Analysis: Section 273 read with Rule 2 prescribed a limitation period of thirty days for an appeal to the Zilla Parishad. The Court held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable to a special or local law limitation regime unless expressly excluded, and therefore Section 5 can apply to appeals under the special enactment. The Court further held that condonation is not automatic: the appellate authority must apply its mind to limitation and record a finding on sufficient cause for the delay. On the record, the authority had not undertaken that exercise or recorded any finding on condonation.

Conclusion: The time-bar issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. The appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to sustain the appeal without addressing limitation and sufficient cause, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special or local law prescribes a different limitation period, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 attracts Section 5 unless expressly excluded, but the authority must record a reasoned finding on sufficient cause before entertaining a delayed appeal.

---