Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-
“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”
The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellants and these grounds are manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency. To accept such grounds as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance. So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 325 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:-
“While deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing the appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated Petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”
In “R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108”, the Apex Court has observed thus:-
“We hold that in each and every case, the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”
In “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, it has been observed:-
“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”
