STATE OF HARYANA Vs. CHANDRA MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short, the 'Act') extends prescribed period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal except under the provisions of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') and gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The only condition is that the applicant/appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. In Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762 : (AIR 1962 SC 361), it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant/appellant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed.

(3.) What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237, this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 PC 156, it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumar, (1969) 1 SCR 1006 ; (AIR 1969 SC 575), a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.