Sufficient Cause, Not Length of Delay, Governs Condonation: Supreme Court Accepts Election-Duty Explanation for 130-Day Delay, Restores Appeals Subject to Costs and Stays Contempt Proceedings

Case Name: U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 29 September 2026.

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 13239–13240 of 2026,

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that the decisive consideration under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is the sufficiency of the explanation for delay rather than its duration. Even a short delay may warrant rejection where the explanation lacks credibility, while a longer delay may be condoned if sufficient cause is established. Administrative reasons may justify latitude in State appeals when they are genuine, bona fide and free from mala fide intent. On the facts, the competent authority’s deployment as an election observer and the consequent delay in administrative approval constituted sufficient cause for condoning the 130-day delay.

Summary: The appeals arose from the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench’s refusal to condone a delay of 130 days in filing two intra-court appeals against a common judgment dated 29 February 2024. By that judgment, the High Court had allowed writ petitions challenging an office memorandum dated 4 July 2018 issued by the U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited. Contempt proceedings followed for non-compliance with the judgment.

The Federation explained that its Managing Director, whose approval was required to institute the appeals, had been deputed as an election observer in Gujarat during the general elections between March and May 2024. It also referred to the High Court’s summer vacation and the subsequent steps taken to examine the judgment, obtain legal advice and pursue the appeals. A supplementary affidavit detailed the steps taken from receipt of the certified copies to filing.

Relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) , and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) , the Supreme Court emphasised a pragmatic, justice-oriented assessment of sufficient cause. The requirement to explain delay should not be applied mechanically by demanding an account of every day. At the same time, acceptance of administrative delay depends on a credible explanation and the absence of lethargy.

The Court found that the delay arose from administrative constraints connected with the Managing Director’s election assignment and the requirement of his approval. It accepted the explanation as credible and held that the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide. Recognising that the writ petitioners had spent time and money opposing the condonation applications before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Bench directed that they be compensated through costs.

Decision: The Supreme Court conditionally set aside the impugned order and directed the Federation to pay or deposit costs of ₹2,000 for each writ petitioner within four weeks. The High Court was directed to hear the intra-court appeals on merits only upon production of proof of payment or deposit, and to decide them expeditiously in accordance with law.