Bald Plea Of Living Abroad Or Ill-Health Not A 'Sufficient Cause': Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses To Condone 1221-Day Delay

“Law of limitation is based on public policy — it forfeits the remedy, not the right,”  In a significant ruling reiterating that liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot override statutory mandates, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an application for condonation of 1221 days’ delay in filing a second appeal in a partition suit, observing that the appellant had failed to furnish any credible or convincing justification for the delay.

Single Bench of Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao noted:

“Where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted… The present case reveals several laches and inaction by the petitioner.” [Para 11]

Consequently, the second appeal was rejected, and all interim orders, if any, stood vacated.

Residency Abroad Is No Excuse Without Specifics: Court Rejects Blanket Plea of Ignorance

The appellant M. Muralikrishna, sought to challenge a First Appellate Court judgment dated 31.01.2013 in a partition dispute, but did so only in 2018, with a delay of over 3 years even after receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The explanation offered? That he was residing in Dubai and was unaware of the appellate judgment until his return to India. However, the High Court noted:

“The affidavit of the petitioner is completely silent as to the date of return to India. The very fact that he had prosecuted the first appeal from Dubai itself by engaging a counsel clearly shows that he was well aware of legal proceedings and cannot feign ignorance.” [Para 6]

The Bench found it unsatisfactory that no timeline or supporting material was provided to substantiate this claim. The Court further noted that the copy application for certified judgment was filed only on 13.12.2016, nearly four years after the judgment, and even after receipt of the certified copy, the second appeal was filed one year later.

Ill-Health Without Records Is Not A Valid Excuse

The Court also dismissed the appellant's second ground — that his ill-health prevented timely filing — as unsubstantiated and vague. Justice Rao observed:

“No medical records or particulars of the illness were produced. There is no mention of any hospitalization or even the nature of illness. A bald plea of ill-health without evidence cannot justify an inordinate delay of over five years.” [Para 7]

Noting that the appellant was not new to litigation, having earlier filed and prosecuted the first appeal effectively from abroad, the Court concluded that the delay arose from negligence and lack of bona fides, not from any genuine constraint.

Courts Cannot Extend Limitation On Equitable Grounds Alone

Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative rulings in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector [2024 SCC OnLine SC 513] and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], the High Court emphasized that limitation laws are grounded in public policy, and the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judicially, not sympathetically.

Quoting extensively from the apex court, Justice Gopala Krishna Rao noted:

“Though the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is liberally interpreted to advance substantial justice, such liberality cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation or to condone gross negligence.” [Para 9]

In Basawaraj, the Supreme Court had declared:

“A court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex—‘the law is hard, but it is the law’—applies with full force.” [Para 10]

Accordingly, the Bench ruled that merits of the second appeal were irrelevant, as the delay itself was not condonable.

Delay Without Diligence Is Fatal

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that vague, unsupported justifications such as residence abroad or unspecified health conditions cannot constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

“No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever… It would amount to passing an order in violation of the statutory provision and showing utter disregard to the legislature.” [Para 10, quoting Basawaraj]

By refusing to entertain stale claims after over five years of inaction, the Court has affirmed that limitation periods must be respected, and delay condonation is not a matter of right but a judicial discretion, to be exercised with caution.

Date of Decision: 5 January 2026