State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Azadul Haque - S.5 Limitation Act - Administrative Delay

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Certain amount of latitude requires to be extended when administrative delay is pleaded - the State being an impersonal machinery moves at a snail’s pace, there will be no personal interest of the officials in withholding the file. Even when there is bureaucratic lethargy, the substantial justice cannot be sacrificed at the cost of public good.  (Para 6-7) [Context: Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s refusal to condone a 221-day delay in filing an intra-court appeal- The State was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs to the writ applicant as a condition for the appeal to be heard on merits.]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 -While considering the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 , the expression "sufficient cause" as found in Section 5, will have to receive a liberal interpretation rather than technical or pedantic viewing. Irrespective of the length of delay, if the cause shown is sufficient, the delay deserves to be condoned. When substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, necessarily such technicalities will have to kneel down before the substantial justice or in other words, where the cause shown for the delay is sufficient and the opposite party can be suitably compensated for such delay, necessarily the delay has to be condoned, irrespective of the length of delay. On the other hand, if the delay is short, the cause shown would not be in the proximity of truth or contrary to facts, then in such circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned and the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed. (Para 5)