Limitation and sufficient cause: extraordinary delay cannot be condoned on a false or unconvincing explanation.

Under limitation law, condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, and a liberal approach cannot rest on assumptions or a false or misleading explanation. The Supreme Court found that the respondents had knowledge of the reference court judgment much earlier than claimed, filed contradictory affidavits to justify the delay, and that the High Court condoned 1235 days' delay without properly examining the application, affidavits, and supporting documents. In view of the lack of bona fides and the unconvincing explanation for the extraordinary delay, the condonation was held unjustified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in condoning 1235 days' delay in filing the land acquisition appeal on the basis of the explanation offered by the respondents.

Analysis: The law of limitation requires a showing of sufficient cause, and while a liberal approach may be adopted, such discretion cannot be exercised on assumptions or where the explanation is found to be false, misleading, or lacking bona fides. The material on record showed that the respondents had knowledge of the reference court's judgment much earlier than asserted, that contradictory affidavits were filed to explain the delay, and that the High Court condoned the delay without properly examining the application, affidavits, and supporting documents. In such circumstances, the explanation for the extraordinary delay was not credible.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

---