Extension of prescribed period in certain cases
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the ap The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
Section 5, The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 60
- Advocates Act s. 39 Application of sections 5 and 12 of Limitation Act, 1963
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Rules s. 52 Limitation and Court Fees
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Reforms Regulation 1966 s. 29
- Arunachal Pradesh Education Act 2010 s. 91 Appeals
- Bihar Shops & Establishments Act s. 26 Notice of the dismissal or discharge
- calicut University Act s. 60 Conditions of service of teachers of private colleges
- M.P. Commercial Tax Act s. 66 Extension of period of limitation in certain cases
- Chhattisgarh Irrigation Act 1931 s. 58
- Chhattisgarh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam s. 29
- Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act s. 52
- Code on Social Security s. 52 Appeal to High Court
- Code on Social Security s. 99 Appeal against order of competent authority
and 48 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Office of the Chief Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2012-02-24. Limitation Act s.5: the government does not get a different, more liberal condonation standard. Bureaucratic file-pushing is not 'sufficient cause'. Map limitation-act 5.
On this section: s.5 condonation of delay requires 'sufficient cause'. The government is not a privileged litigant; bureaucratic file-pushing and departmental red tape are not sufficient cause (Living Media).
-
Ongc LTD vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp(l)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute (such as the Electricity Act, 2003) prescribes a specific limitation period with a defined outer limit (120 days under Section 125), that limitation is mandatory and reflects fundamental public policy favoring expeditious resolution. Neither Article 142 of the Constitution nor Section 5 of the Limitation Act can extend such limitation period beyond the statutory outer limit. An order previously condoning delay beyond the prescribed limit should be recalled and ignored. The preliminary objection based on such non-condonable delay is maintainable and must be accepted, resulting in dismissal of the appeal without consideration of merits.
On this section: Provides for condonation of delay on sufficient cause. Court held that Section 5 cannot be invoked to extend limitation period under Section 125 of Electricity Act because the Act is special legislation with its own limitation prescription.
-
Patel Brothers vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The VAT Act is a complete code prescribing its own limitation periods and condonation provisions at each appellate level. Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically making only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, necessarily implies exclusion of other provisions including Section 5. This exclusion is further supported by the scheme of the VAT Act which provides express condonation powers at lower appellate levels (Sections 79 and 80) but deliberately omits such provision at the revision level (Section 81), indicating clear legislative intent to exclude Section 5 condonation at the revision stage. The High Court has no power to condone delay in filing revision petitions beyond the prescribed 60-day period.
On this section: Provides for condonation of delay in presenting appeals or applications; held not applicable to VAT revision petitions
-
Balwant Singh (dead) vs Jagdish Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 CPC must be grounded in bona fide conduct and reasonable diligence; liberal construction does not mean rendering limitation laws redundant in cases of gross negligence.
On this section: Discretionary power to condone delay upon showing sufficient cause.
-
Mamtaben M Patel vs Mukul Thakorebhai Amin
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application to set aside an auction sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be filed within 60 days from the date of proclamation of sale as prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This is a strict limitation period, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for condonation of delay) does not apply to applications under Order XXI of CPC. To claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding), the applicant must prove that the other proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court without jurisdiction. If an application is barred by limitation, the court need not go into the merits of the case, and the issue of limitation must be decided first before considering other grounds for setting aside the sale.
On this section: Deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Court held that Section 5 explicitly excludes applications under Order XXI of CPC, therefore delay in filing application under Order XXI Rule 90 cannot be condoned under Section 5.
-
Arunoday Singh vs Lee Anne Elton
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes the application of the Limitation Act to suits and proceedings under laws relating to marriage and divorce, applies only to original proceedings (suits) and not to appeals from decrees or orders in matrimonial matters. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (condonation of delay) apply to appeals from matrimonial decrees, and such appeals can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The word 'proceeding' in Section 29(3) must be interpreted using the principle of noscitur a sociis to mean original proceedings in the nature of suits, not appellate proceedings.
On this section: Provides for extension of prescribed period for appeals and applications where sufficient cause is shown; Court held this applies to matrimonial appeals as it is not expressly excluded
-
In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the authority and responsibility to establish uniform procedural guidelines across all High Courts for the cognizance and determination of applications for extension of limitation periods, ensuring that litigants receive fair, transparent, and consistent treatment regardless of jurisdiction, and that the exercise of judicial discretion in limitation matters serves the overarching interest of justice on merits.
On this section: Power to extend limitation periods on grounds of sufficient cause; procedures for exercising this discretion
-
Sagufa Ahmed vs Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for filing an appeal to the NCLAT starts from the date on which a copy of the NCLT order is made available to the person aggrieved. The Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extending the period of limitation due to COVID-19 applies only to the 'prescribed period' (the period of limitation) and not to the discretionary period for condonation of delay provided in the proviso to Section 421(3). The discretionary period for condonation of delay is limited to 45 days and cannot be extended by the COVID-19 extension order. The law of limitation is based on the principle of vigilance, and litigants who fail to file proceedings within the prescribed period and the discretionary condonation period cannot claim the benefit of the COVID-19 extension order.
On this section: Enables admission of appeal or application after the prescribed period in certain circumstances
-
Thakker Shipping P. LTD vs Commr. of Customs(general)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Appellate Tribunal possesses the competence to invoke Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 to condone delays in making applications under Section 129D(4) of the Act, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for non-presentation of the application within the prescribed period. This competence arises from the explicit language of Section 129D(4) which provides that applications made by the Commissioner shall be heard as if they were appeals against adjudicating authority orders and that the provisions of the Act regarding appeals, so far as they may be applicable, shall apply to such applications. Consequently, Section 129A(5) stands incorporated into Section 129D(4) by way of legal fiction, and the Tribunal must give effect to this incorporation.
On this section: Provides for condonation of delay in presenting appeals under the Limitation Act; distinguished and held not applicable to proceedings under Customs Act which has its own delay condonation provisions
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Condonation of delay; held to be expressly excluded from Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on 'but not thereafter' language
-
Balwant Singh (dead) vs Jagdish Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice but presupposes no negligence or inaction; it cannot be used to deprive a party of a vested right accrued via limitation when the applicant has acted with callousness and lack of bona fides.
On this section: Condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause.
-
Ravi Prakash Goel vs Chanra Prakash Goel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an arbitration agreement is contained in a partnership deed and a dispute touching the affairs of the partnership firm has arisen during the lifetime of a partner, the legal representative of that deceased partner is entitled to invoke and enforce the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the death of the original partner. This right flows from Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that arbitration agreements do not discharge upon death and remain enforceable by legal representatives, read harmoniously with Sections 46, 47, and 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, which preserve and enforce the rights of representatives to claim accounts and have the firm wound up. The arbitration clause survives the dissolution of the partnership and the death of a partner, and it is not necessary for the partnership deed to explicitly include heirs and legal representatives for this succession to apply, as such rights are governed by statute.
On this section: Limitation period for suits by representatives for partnership accounts; the Court noted this would apply to any alternative suit
-
State vs Shrikant S/o Rambilas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay cannot be granted without adequate and substantive reasons explaining the entire period of delay. Additionally, an appellate court cannot substitute its own reasons for an acquittal recorded by a trial court unless a glaring mistake is demonstrated with sufficient and plausible grounds, particularly when the trial court's conclusion is based on credible evidence and the accused is known to the victim's family.
On this section: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal - dismissed due to lack of adequate explanation for the 359-day delay
-
PAWAN S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI vs PRAKASH G SHETTY SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS Lr. RAJESHWARI PRAKASH SHETTY
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When An Accused In A Criminal Trial Is Denied Reasonable Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Complainant's Witness And To Present Defence Evidence Due To Procedural Defects Such As Absence During Trial And Lack Of Proper Representation, The Conviction Passed By The Trial Court Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial, And The Appellate Court Must Set Aside The Conviction And Remand The Case For Fresh Trial From The Stage Of Cross-Examination To Ensure Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice And Provide The Accused With A Fair Opportunity To Meet The Case Of The Prosecution.
On this section: Condonation Of Delay; Appellant Sought Condonation Of 38 Days Delay In Preferring Appeal; Court Allowed The Application Considering Reasons Of Ill Health And Financial Problems
-
RAMDEV MOBILE vs BAREJIYA VICKY VAJUBHAI
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can be condoned under the proviso to Section 142(b) if the complainant satisfies the court that they had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period.
On this section: Condonation of delay for sufficient cause.
-
Sandip Kamlakar Kulkarni vs Surekha Vivek Kate
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Condonation of delay is a matter between the court and the complainant; technical failures in court-mandated e-filing systems constitute sufficient grounds for a liberal condonation of delay.
On this section: Provision used to seek condonation of the 133-day delay.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal …
-
… Hence, Section 5 would not apply as it would render this phrase redundant if a further period was allowed to be condoned through reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [23]( page-18-0) 18.1 The Court further considered the scheme and object of the ACA and held that Section 34(1) provides for recourse against the arbitral award "in accordance with" sub-sections (2) and (3), which set out the grounds and the time period for challenging the arbitral …
-
… Advocate, with<br>Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate. | Date: 21/10/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE … ORDER : (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 22 days shall be taken up for consideration only after all the respondents have been duly served. An affidavit of service, indicating service as directed herein, shall be filed on or before the next date. Let this matter be listed on Friday, …
Questions about Section 5
What have the courts held on Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Office of the Chief Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (24 Feb 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.5 condonation of delay requires 'sufficient cause'. The government is not a privileged litigant; bureaucratic file-pushing and departmental red tape are not sufficient cause (Living Media). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Limitation Act 5, section 5 Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act. People searching for it also type limitation act 5 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Office of the Chief Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (24 Feb 2012).
What should I read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
60 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 5 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, commonly called condonation of delay, and cited as Limitation Act 5, came into force on 01 Jan 1964, having been enacted on 05 Oct 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908557 words
- 17. Effect of fraud or mistake401 words
- 2. Definitions363 words
- 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases347 words
- 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction312 words
- 6. Legal disability283 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.