Condonation of delay failed where awareness of the order and inadequate explanation left a revision time barred.

A revision filed with a 433-day delay was refused condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the explanation did not cover the full period. The court noted that the petitioner and counsel were aware of the impugned order and had been actively participating in the trial proceedings, so the delay was not shown to arise from sufficient cause. Custody and later disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic were found inadequate to justify the belated filing. The revision was therefore treated as time barred and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 433 days in filing the revision deserved condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the revision could be entertained despite being time barred.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was examined on the basis of the explanation offered for the belated filing. The record showed that the petitioner and counsel were aware of the impugned order and had been actively participating in the proceedings before the trial court. The reasons advanced, namely custody and the later disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, were held insufficient to explain the entire period of delay. The delay was treated as deliberate and intentional, and no sufficient cause was found to extend the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the revision was held to be time barred and dismissed.

---