Section 5: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases

Leading cases

• Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021)The Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013)The Court set aside the High Court's condonation of a 2449 day delay in a school managing committee's appeal, and set out principles and guidelines for deciding applications for condonation of delay.
• Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001)Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the words 'but not thereafter' in Section 34(3) expressly exclude it.
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)The Court held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be applied liberally to do substantial justice, that the State is entitled to the same treatment as any litigant, and condoned a four-day delay.

Questions on this section

17 questions in 27 of our papers cite Section 5. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. Defendant D died during the pendency of P's suit. P did not know of the death and so did not apply to bring D's legal representatives on record in time, and the suit abated. Later, beyond the period of limitation, P applies to set aside the abatement along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, pleading ignorance of the death. Under Order XXII Rule 4(5) CPC, the Court:

   A.must allow it automatically, since ignorance of death is a complete answerB.shall have due regard to P's ignorance of the death, if it is provedC.must reject it, since Section 5 does not apply to applications under Order XXIID.may consider the ignorance only if D's legal representatives consent
   Show answer

2. 2. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987), the Supreme Court, dealing with condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, held that:

   A.Delay of more than one year can never be condoned in an appeal preferred by the StateB."Sufficient cause" should receive a liberal approach so as to advance substantial justiceC.The State must explain each day of delay more strictly than a private litigant is required toD.Condonation is permissible only when the delay is caused by the act of the court itself
   Show answer

3. 3. Under the Explanation to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which of the following may be sufficient cause for delay?

   A.The appellant was awaiting the outcome of another appeal on a similar question pending in the High CourtB.The appellant was misled by the advice of a law officer of the Government in computing the periodC.The appellant was misled by an order, practice or judgment of the High Court in computing the periodD.The appellant was unaware of the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for that appeal
   Show answer