They Said They Only Heard About It In 2020. The Record Said Otherwise.
An appellate court condoned nearly five years' delay in a restoration application without giving reasons. The Calcutta High Court has reversed it.
The Court held no case for condoning the delay of almost five years is made out. ‘Sufficient cause’ cannot be construed so liberally as to reward negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides, and a mechanical or unreasoned condonation defeats the very object of limitation. The applicants had also suppressed their knowledge of the dismissal, a claim the Court found apparently false and manufactured. The restoration was set aside.
- The bona fides come first. A court must test the explanation before bringing the merits of the case into aid.
- No reasons were given below for condoning nearly five years, and that alone fell short.
- Discretion must be exercised sparingly and supported by cogent reasons — Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.
- They had participated in other proceedings where the dismissal was disclosed, which is how the suppression showed.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
- Citation
- C.O. No. 167 of 2026
- Case
- C.O. No. 167 of 2026
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Revision allowed; condonation refused and restoration set aside
What sufficient cause requires
A court must ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered before bringing the merits of the underlying matter into aid.
‘Sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed so liberally as to reward a party guilty of negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by a cause beyond his control from prosecuting the proceeding within time.
A mechanical or unreasoned condonation defeats the very object of the law of limitation, as held in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. Tested on that touchstone, the reasoning in the order under challenge fell short of the standard the law requires.
What the court below failed to do
The appellate court failed to assess the facts while considering the application, and failed to assign any reasons for condoning a delay of almost five years in filing the restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code.
Had it taken those facts into consideration genuinely and in accordance with law, the application for condonation would have been dismissed. While allowing condonation of inordinate delay, a court must exercise its discretionary power sparingly and judiciously, supported by cogent and valid reasons — conspicuously absent here.
The suppression
The opposite parties did not approach the appellate court with clean hands, and suppressed their knowledge of the dismissal.
They had participated in proceedings against them before the Executive Magistrate and before the High Court, in both of which the petitioner had disclosed the appeal and the subsequent miscellaneous case. Their claim to have learnt of the dismissal only in October 2020 is apparently false and manufactured.
Having failed to approach the court below with clean hands and having suppressed material facts about their knowledge, they were disentitled to the discretionary relief of condonation. The application was dismissed, the restoration set aside, and the order under challenge set aside.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Will a court condone years of delay?
Only on a genuine explanation of a cause beyond the party's control, supported by reasons. Almost five years was refused here.
What does coming with clean hands mean?
Disclosing when you actually learnt of the order. Suppressing it disentitles you to the discretionary relief.
Opposing a long-delayed restoration application
- Attack the bona fides of the explanation first; the merits do not come into it until that is crossed.
- Search the record of other proceedings for the moment the other side actually learnt of the order.
- Where the order below gives no reasons, make that a ground in itself.
- Cite Basawaraj on discretion being exercised sparingly and with cogent reasons.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, C.O. No. 167 of 2026, decided 7 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in