Introduction

This case deals with the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which says any appeal or application may be accepted even after the limitation period is over, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Facts

• The State of Nagaland filed an appeal before the Supreme Court questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench.
• The HC refused to approve an application, filed under filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, that sought to extend the time limit for a legal action.
• The application was related to asking permission (grant of leave) under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The judge's decision was based on the fact that the application for permission was filed beyond the limitation period.
• The judgment was given on 18th December 2002, and the application for permission was delayed.
• The government explained that the delay was because the official records were missing for 57 days.
• However, the HC did not accept this explanation and rejected the request to extend the time limit.
• The court argued that it was the responsibility of the party involved in the case to submit the appeal before the original time limit expired.
• As a result, both the request to extend the time limit and the application for permission were denied.

Issue Involved

• Whether the HC was correct in refusing to condone the delay?

Observation

• The Court held that “Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties”.
  • The rule states that the court must step into the shoes of the individual in question. It is tasked with determining whether the delay can be attributed to the reasons provided by the person and are valid.
• The Court further 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 Court observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed with an approach of providing justice.
• The public interest is paramount because of which the court allowed the appeal by the State.

Conclusion

• The SC set aside the order of the HC which refused to condone the delay.

Notes

• Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases — Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
• Explanation. — The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.