Can an appeal or application for review be admitted after the period prescribed therefore has expired? (The Limitation Act, 1963)

The general rule is that every suit instituted, appeal preferred or application made after the period prescribed there for by the first schedule shall be dismissed. Section 5 is an exception to this general rule and provides that an appeal or any other than an application under Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, relating to execution may be admitted after period of limitation prescribed there for, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. But mere proof or existence of sufficient cause for not filing the proceeding within the prescribed period does not ipso facto compel the Court to extend the time.

The Court has a discretion which is of course a judicial and not an arbitrary discretion, to admit or refuse to admit the proceeding even if sufficient cause is shown. The existence of sufficient cause for not filing the proceeding in time is thus merely a condition that must be satisfied before the Court can exercise its power of granting or refusing to grant the extension of time.

If the condition is not satisfied, there is no room for the applicability of the discretion. Thus, where no cause has been given for filing the proceeding out of time, there arises no opportunity of considering the sufficiency or otherwise of the reason for that fact, and there cannot be any room for the exercise of the discretion given by the section.

Image Source: mackinac.org

If an appellant or applicant is misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation, he must be regarded as having shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the period allowed by law, and he is entitled to extension of time under section 5.

But although the appellant may be excused on the ground that he was misled by the past practice of the Court and thus made a mistake of law, he cannot be excused if he makes an undue delay in filing the appeal after he becomes aware of the mistake.