Delay condonation discretion upheld where sufficient cause and reasoned explanation for institutional delay were shown.

Delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act depends on whether sufficient cause is shown on the facts of each case, assessed pragmatically and with a liberal but justice-oriented approach. In appellate review of a discretionary condonation order, interference is warranted only if the lower court acted arbitrarily or reached a clearly wrong conclusion. The High Court's reliance on institutional delay and inter-departmental processing was treated as a reasoned exercise of discretion, so the challenge failed and the condonation order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 479 days in filing the appeal against the Reference Court's order.

Analysis: The governing principle under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is whether sufficient cause has been shown, and the sufficiency of the explanation must be judged on the facts of each case. While limitation law is to be applied with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, the decisive consideration remains whether the explanation is acceptable and whether the delay is explained rather than excused. The order under challenge was not an original decision on condonation but a discretionary order of the High Court. In appellate review of such an order, interference is warranted only if the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or if the order is clearly wrong. The High Court had assigned reasons based on the explanation offered by the Union of India, including institutional delay and inter-departmental processing, and those reasons could not be characterised as arbitrary.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in condoning the delay, and the challenge to that discretionary exercise failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court declined to interfere with the condonation order and upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court should not interfere with an order condoning delay unless the discretion exercised below is clearly wrong or arbitrary, and the existence of sufficient cause must be assessed pragmatically on the facts of the case.

---