Condonation of delay under limitation law requires sufficient cause, not sympathy, equity, or merits of the underlying dispute.

Limitation law requires dismissal of proceedings filed beyond time under Section 3, subject only to statutory exceptions such as Section 5. Condonation of delay under Section 5 depends on sufficient cause, meaning a bona fide, adequate and convincing explanation showing due diligence; it cannot rest on sympathy, equity, parity, or the merits of the underlying dispute. Applying that standard, an extraordinarily long delay with no satisfactory explanation and no demonstrated diligence justified refusal to condone. The High Court's discretionary decision was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in filing the proposed land acquisition appeal ought to be condoned under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The law of limitation is founded on public policy and Section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates dismissal of proceedings instituted beyond the prescribed period, subject only to the exceptions, including Section 5. While Section 5 permits condonation on showing sufficient cause, the power is discretionary and cannot be exercised on sympathetic, equitable, or parity-based considerations alone. The expression sufficient cause requires a bona fide, adequate, and convincing explanation showing diligence, and the merits of the underlying dispute are irrelevant at the stage of condonation. In the present case, the delay was extraordinarily long, the explanation did not establish due diligence, most claimants had accepted the reference court's decision, and no ground was made out to disturb the High Court's discretionary refusal to condone the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the refusal to condone it was upheld.

---