{"id":374791,"date":"2026-02-05T14:00:38","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T08:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=374791"},"modified":"2026-02-10T09:24:54","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T03:54:54","slug":"bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a review petition challenging an appellate order, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain<\/span>, J., held that a delay of 645 days in filing the petition could not be condoned under Section 5<\/a> of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>, (‘Limitation Act’). The Court noted that the explanations offered, such as the search for expert counsel, summer vacation, a family wedding, and attempts at settlement, were vague and unsupported, and therefore did not amount to “sufficient cause.” Consequently, the interim application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the review petition stood dismissed.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The matter arose from a change report of 2004, which was decided in appeal in 2024. The applicants sought to review the appellate order dated 06-02-2024 but filed the review petition only on 18-12-2025, resulting in a delay of 645 days.<\/p>\n

The applicants contended that the delay was occasioned due to several circumstances. They argued that the matter involved complex questions concerning the scope of appellate powers under Section 70<\/a> of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950<\/a>, the validity of appointments under a Scheme framed by the Court, and the propriety of a remand order under Order XLI Rule 23A<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>. They submitted that considerable time was consumed in identifying suitable counsel with expertise in trust and scheme-related litigation, holding conferences, and obtaining legal opinion.<\/p>\n

Further, they pointed to intervening summer vacations of the High Court and personal circumstances, including a wedding in the family, which disrupted their ability to attend to litigation. They also claimed to have made genuine efforts to resolve the dispute amicably by addressing communications to the other side in March, May, July, and October 2025, but receiving either unsatisfactory replies or no response. On these grounds, they urged that the delay be condoned, stressing that the issue raised an important question of law and that the statutory period of 30 days was too short.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court emphasised that the reasons advanced did not constitute “sufficient cause.” It was noted that the statement regarding engaging a counsel who is an expert in trust matters and, therefore, considerable time was consumed in identifying such a counsel, cannot be a ground which would constitute “sufficient cause,” since there is no supporting document for this particular cause, making it a general and vague statement offered to explain the delay of 645 days. The Court further observed that the reasons relating to summer vacation and a family wedding were statements without substantiation, as even during vacation, if urgency is shown, filing permission is granted.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted that the attempt to settle the matter was not made within the limitation period provided under the Limitation Act, but almost after 1 year from the date of the impugned judgment and much after the expiry of limitation period. It was further noted that the argument that the delay was short compared to the two decades taken to decide the appeal was misconceived, since condonation must be examined only with reference to the period after the order was passed.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the submission that the issue involved an important question of law was self-contradictory, as such importance required speedier action rather than delay. The Court also rejected the contention that the statutory period of 30 days was too short, holding that the legislature had consciously factored the time needed for consultation and decision-making.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Court noted that the phrase “sufficient cause” had been recently considered by the Supreme Court in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969<\/a>, and reiterated that the causes shown in the application at hand does not constitute “sufficient cause” but is only an attempt which would constitute “excuses” and that too without any supporting thereof.<\/p>\n

In view of this, the Court dismissed the interim application, and consequently, the review petition did not survive and was disposed of.<\/p>\n

[Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala v. Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 649<\/a>, decided on 02-02-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Applicants:<\/span> Tushad Kakalia a\/w Anjali Sharma, Suraj Agarwal i\/by Crawford Bayley<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Kashish Singhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The attempt was not made within the limitation period provided under the Limitation Act, but almost after 1 year from the date of the impugned judgment and much after the expiry of limitation period.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":374803,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[98237,2569,2552,31480,67938,24144,66114,98238,4841,98239,32319],"class_list":["post-374791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-appellate-order","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-delay-in-filing","tag-justice-jitendra-jain","tag-limitation-act","tag-maharashtra-public-trusts-act","tag-order-xli-rule-23a-cpc","tag-review-petition","tag-shivamma-case","tag-sufficient-cause"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC: Review petition filed after 645 days delay not condonable | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"headline\":\"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":695,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"appellate order\",\"Bombay High Court\",\"Condonation of delay\",\"Delay in filing\",\"Justice Jitendra Jain\",\"Limitation Act\",\"Maharashtra Public Trusts Act\",\"Order XLI Rule 23A CPC\",\"Review petition\",\"Shivamma case\",\"Sufficient Cause\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC: Review petition filed after 645 days delay not condonable | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute \\\"sufficient cause\\\" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/05\\\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/soumya\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC: Review petition filed after 645 days delay not condonable | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute \"sufficient cause\" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'","og_description":"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute \"sufficient cause\" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/"},"author":{"name":"Soumya Yadav","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"headline":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’","datePublished":"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/"},"wordCount":695,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp","keywords":["appellate order","Bombay High Court","Condonation of delay","Delay in filing","Justice Jitendra Jain","Limitation Act","Maharashtra Public Trusts Act","Order XLI Rule 23A CPC","Review petition","Shivamma case","Sufficient Cause"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","name":"Bom HC: Review petition filed after 645 days delay not condonable | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-05T08:30:38+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-10T03:54:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Bombay High Court holds that vague and unsupported reasons such as summer vacation, family wedding, and attempts at settlement do not constitute \"sufficient cause\" under the Limitation Act, therfore, delay of 645-day delay not condonable..","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court's vacation, and family wedding not 'sufficient cause'"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":207127,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/21\/appeal-filed-along-with-application-for-condonation-of-delay-when-dismissed-is-a-decree-within-section-22-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":0},"title":"Appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay when dismissed is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.\u00a0 The petitioners were aggrieved by this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":202920,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/01\/application-seeking-condonation-of-delay-must-meet-the-test-of-section-5-of-the-jammu-kashmir-limitation-samvat-1995-and-satisfy-the-court-with-sufficient-cause-for-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":1},"title":"Application seeking condonation of delay must meet the test of Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Samvat, 1995 and satisfy the court with sufficient cause for delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of M.K. Hanjura, J. while dealing with an application for condonation of delay in filing a review petition, dismissed both the application as well as the petition on grounds of inordinate delay in filing the same. Brief facts of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":159864,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/28\/s-5-of-limitation-act-can-be-invoked-in-requesting-commercial-appellate-court-set-up-under-act-4-of-2016-to-condone-delay-in-presenting-an-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":2},"title":"S. 5 of Limitation Act can be invoked in requesting Commercial Appellate Court set up under Act 4 of 2016 to condone delay in presenting an appeal","author":"Saba","date":"September 28, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: While deciding a Notice of Motion for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, a two-Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. and Vibha Kankanwadi, J. held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked and applied in requesting the Commercial Appellate Court set\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346297,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/23\/foreign-travel-will-not-constitute-condonation-of-delay-u-s-5-limitation-act-bomhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":3},"title":"Foreign travel will not constitute \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act: Bombay HC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court was sympathetic to the difficulty cast on the petitioner on account of restricted movement due to hostile weather and old age, but the Court did not understand as to what precluded his counsel from acting on his behalf.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243004,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/ker-hc-eviction-and-rent-control-rent-control-court-has-power-under-s-5-of-limitation-act-to-condone-delay-if-sufficient-cause-is-shown-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":4},"title":"Ker HC | [Eviction and Rent Control] Rent Control Court has power under S. 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay, if sufficient cause is shown; Petition allowed","author":"Editor","date":"January 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: A. Hariprasad J., while hearing a revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and remitted the matter to be considered on merits as expeditiously as possible. Revision petitioner (tenant)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":211230,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/02\/raj-hc-delay-in-filing-the-appeal-due-to-ongoing-vacation-of-navratri-and-non-availability-of-counsel-in-jodhpur-not-enough-reason-for-condonation\/","url_meta":{"origin":374791,"position":5},"title":"Raj HC | Delay in filing appeal due to ongoing vacation of \u2018Navratri\u2019, and non-availability of counsel in Jodhpur: Not enough reason for condonation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Dinesh Mehta and Sangeet Lodha, JJ. dismissed the appeal filed against the order passed by the Single Judge of the Court whereby writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner\/appellant seeking a direction to respondents to rectify the inventory after an inordinate delay of 54 years\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374791","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374791"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374791\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/374803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}