Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Oriental Aroma ChemicalIndustries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., reported in

CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025Karur, filed the said suit for recovery of sum of Rs.17,63,250/- along with interest.The same was dismissed by the trial Court by the Judgment and Decree dated21.07.2023. There is a delay of 448 days occurred in preferring the appeal. 3.Before going into the merit of the case, this Court recapitulates the principleslaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal inthe following cases: (i)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v.Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held as follows: 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadlybe culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented,nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application forcondonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legaliseinjustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in theirproper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to thefact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied inproper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technicalconsiderations should not be given undue and uncalled foremphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation ofdelay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonationof delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof shouldnot affect public justice and cause public mischief because thecourts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimateeventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule theconception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totallyunfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delayof short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine ofprejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not beattracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approachwhereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to itsinaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken intoconsideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that thecourts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice inrespect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given atotal go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged inthe application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not toexpose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud,3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to thetechnicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized andthe approach should be based on the paradigm of judicialdiscretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not onindividual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing acollective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some moreguidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: - a) An application for condonation of delay should be draftedwith careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouringthe notion that the courts are required to condone delay on thebedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits isseminal to justice dispensation system. b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealtwith in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophywhich is basically subjective. c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being hadto the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort forachieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory systemshould be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-seriousmatter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in anonchallant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025parameters. (ii).The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Oriental Aroma ChemicalIndustries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., reported in (2010) 5 SCC459 has observed that as follows: “14. … The law of limitation is founded on public policy. Thelegislature does not prescribe limitation with the object ofdestroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do notresort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. Theidea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a periodfixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitationprescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed forredress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts arebestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficientcause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulatedtime.” The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of theLimitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enoughto enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful mannerwhich subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-fastrule can be laid down in dealing with the applications forcondonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocatedadoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of shortduration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinateNow upon a close look at the prayer made for condonation of5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025delay we find that although the delay is substantial, the same hasbeen sought to be explained in a manner even if it may not befool proof but is quite convincing.” (iii).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v.M.Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held as follows: 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter ofdiscretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does notsay that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay iswithin a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptabilityof the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of theshortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptableexplanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very longrange can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory.Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is theresult of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superiorcourt should not disturb such finding, much less in revisionaljurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whollyuntenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a differentmatter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In suchcases, the superior court would be free to consider the causeshown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior courtto come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusionof the lower court. 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort todilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object ofproviding a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused byreason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan forsuch legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. Duringthe efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitatingnewer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts.So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending periodfor launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty andconsequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded onpublic policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae upsit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put tolitigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rightsof the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort todilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is thatevery legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixedperiod of time. 13. It must be remembered that in every case ofdelay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigantconcerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and toshut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack ofmala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, thecourt must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But whenthere is reasonable ground to think that the delay wasoccasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025should lean against acceptance of the explanation. Whilecondoning the delay, the court should not forget the oppositeparty altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser andhe too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. Itwould be a salutary guideline that when courts condone thedelay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shallcompensate the opposite party for his loss. (iv).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Madhuri Goud v. B.Damodar Reddy, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held as under: “6. The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of theLimitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough toenable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner whichserves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or canbe laid down for deciding the applications for condonation ofdelay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that aliberal approach needs to be adopted in such matters so thatsubstantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on theground of delay. (v).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector (LA) v. Katiji, reportedin (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as follows: Para 3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay byenacting Section 5 [ Any appeal or any application, other than anapplication under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribedperiod if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that hehad sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making theapplication within such period.] of the Indian Limitation Act of1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice toparties by disposing of matters on ”merits”. The expression“sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequatelyelastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningfulmanner which subserves the ends of justice — that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It iscommon knowledge that this Court has been making ajustifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court.But the message does not appear to have percolated down to allthe other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach isadopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging anappeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matterbeing thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice beingdefeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highestthat can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits afterhearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that apedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay,every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations arepitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves tobe preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested rightin injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately,or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. Infact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account ofits power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because itis capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Makinga justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there wassufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of theappeal. The fact that it was the “State” which was seekingcondonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant.The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants,including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatmentand the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There isno warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the“State” is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In factexperience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery(no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by thejudgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inheritedbureaucratic methodology imbued with the notemaking,10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025filepushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part isless difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. Inany event, the State which represents the collective cause of thecommunity, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. Thecourts therefore have to be informed with the spirit andphilosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation ofthe expression “sufficient cause”. So also the same approach hasto be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the endin view to do even- handed justice on merits in preference to theapproach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to thefacts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we aresatisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order ofthe High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, istherefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter isremitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose ofthe appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity ofhearing to both the sides. (vi).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Administrator,Howrah Municipality reported in (1972) 1 SCC 366 has held as under: 26. The legal position when a question arises under Section 5ofthe Limitation Act is fairly well-settled. It is not possible to laydown precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute“sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But itmay be safely stated that the delay in filing an appeal should not11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025have been for reasons which indicate the party's negligence innot taking necessary steps, which he could have or should havetaken. Here again, what would be such necessary steps willagain depend upon the circumstances of a particular case andeach case will have to be decided by the courts on the facts andcircumstances of the case. Any observation of an illustrativecircumstance or fact will only tend to be a curb on the freeexercise of the judicial mind by the Court in determiningwhether the facts and circumstances of a particular case amountto “sufficient cause” or not. It is needless to emphasise thatcourts have to use their judicial discretion in the matter soundlyin the interest of justice. With the guidelines of the aboveprinciples laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Courtdelves into the facts of this case.(vii).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Aroma ChemicalIndustries Ltd. V. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in 2010 5SCC 459 has held that there is no necessity to prove the explanation in fool proofway but to show convincing reason and the relevant portion is as follows: “Now upon a close look at the prayer made for condonation ofdelay we find that although the delay is substantial, the same hasbeen sought to be explained in a manner even if it may not befool proof but is quite convincing.” 4.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the reasons stated in the12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025affidavit para 11. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent byfiling counter. The reason stated by the petitioner that he had taken care of his ageold parents is bona fide one according to the view of this Court. Hence, In view ofthe above said precedents, this Court is inclined to condone the delay on payment ofcosts.5.Accordingly, this petition stands allowed in the following terms.1.The petitioner is not entitled for the interest for 448 days in the event ofsucceeding the appeal filed by him.2.The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees FifteenThousand only) as cost to the respondent on or before 20.07.2025, failingwhich, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any furtherreference to Court.3.List the matter on 21.07.2025 for reporting compliance. sd/- 07/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TM13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025TOThe Principal District Judge, Karur ORDER IN CMP(MD) NO. 3523 of 2025INAS(MD) SR NO. 15934 OF 2025 Date :07/07/2025MK/10.07.2025 14P/2C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 14/14