Case Name : Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors Case Reference: (2013) 9 SCR 892 Case Number: CA No.s 8183-84/2013 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: Anil R Dave, Dipak Misra (author) Date: 13.09.2013
The expression ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice, that is, the life-purpose for existence of institution of court.
There should not be a pedantic approach.
The doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical considerations.
There is no presumption that delay is occassioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence and that the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice on technical grounds as it is the duty of the court to remove injustice.
The State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status and courts are required to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of interpretation of the expression ‘sufficient cause’.
There is no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel, there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal.
Section 5 must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack
Refer also: Collector (LA) vs Katiji G Ramegowda vs Land Acquisition Officer
See also: Limitation - Section 5
PDF: Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, (2013) 9 SCR 892.pdf