Sufficient cause for delay: court upheld condonation based on medical incapacity and documentary proof, no interference.

Application under the Limitation Act to condone a 170 day delay was upheld because the appellate court applied the discretionary sufficient cause test, weighed medical evidence of diabetic illness and radiculopathy with ongoing treatment, and provided cogent reasons for relief. The challenge under Section 115 CPC attacked only the legality of that discretionary exercise; the High Court found no illegality or material irregularity in the appellate court's balancing of strict limitation rules against a liberal, justice oriented approach, and dismissed the revision petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 04.12.2023, whereby the First Appellate Court condoned a delay of 170 days in instituting the first appeal by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, suffers from illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Legal framework applicable includes Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the discretionary power to condone delay subject to demonstration of sufficient cause; the principles in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and Others v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) regarding a balance between strict construction of limitation and a liberal, justice-oriented approach in exercise of discretion are applicable. On the facts, the appellant below had produced medical evidence and explained that diabetic illness and radiculopathy, with ongoing treatment including physiotherapy, prevented timely consultation with counsel. The First Appellate Court considered the medical documents and explanations and exercised discretion to condone the delay. The petition under Section 115 CPC challenges only the legality and regularity of that discretionary exercise.

Conclusion: The exercise of discretion by the First Appellate Court in condoning the delay of 170 days is supported by cogent reasons and documentary material, does not exhibit illegality or material irregularity, and therefore the revision petition is dismissed; no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 04.12.2023.

---