Introduction
An Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is filed when a party fails to institute proceedings or file an application within the prescribed limitation period and seeks the court’s discretionary relief to excuse such delay.
When an application for recalling an order (such as an ex parte order, dismissal for non-prosecution, or closure of right) is filed beyond limitation, the court cannot entertain it unless the delay is first condoned. Therefore, an application under Section 5 becomes a mandatory procedural step.
The underlying principle of Section 5 is that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, provided the applicant shows sufficient cause for the delay. Courts generally lean in favour of deciding matters on the merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds.
Legal Provision (Statutory Basis)
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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.
Here are some key elements are given below:
- Applies to appeals and applications
- Does not apply to execution applications under Order XXI CPC
- Requires proof of “sufficient cause”
- Discretionary power of the court
- Delay must be explained day-to-day (where applicable)
Explanation of Delay Demonstrating Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Courts have consistently held that:
Each case is decided on its own facts
- “Sufficient cause” must be reasonable, bona fide, and beyond negligence
- Length of delay is less important than the explanation
- The applicant must not be careless, casual, or deliberate
When This Application Is Required
You need an application under Section 5 when:
- An application for recalling an ex parte order is filed late
- The order was passed in the absence, and the limitation expired
- The case was dismissed for non-prosecution, and restoration is delayed
- The right to file a written statement has closed, and the recall is delayed
This application is usually filed along with:
- Application for recalling order
(under Section 151 CPC / Order IX Rule 7 or Rule 13 CPC, as applicable)
Keypoint
The court will first decide the Section 5 application.
Only after condonation of the delay will the court hear the recall application on the merits.
Format Of Application
The format of the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay in Filing Application for Recalling Order is given below:
IN THE COURT OF __________ SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KARACHI DISTRICT ___________
CIVIL SUIT NO: ______ OF 20____
ABC ———————————————- PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
XYZ ———————————————- DEFENDANTS
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay in Filing Application for Recalling Order
It is respectfully prayed on behalf of Defendants No. 2 to 4 above-named that this Honorable Court kindly be pleased to allow the instant application, thereby condoning the delay in filing the Application for Recalling the Order in the interest of justice. In contrast, Defendant No. 4, namely: _________________, went to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to perform religious obligations.
She was not present at Pakistan and also unaware about Order dated: ______________ in the above matter, and also the Defendant No. 2 was unable to appear before the Honorable Court of law due to a medical condition, duly informed to the Counsel, despite of fact that such information was already share by the Counsel for the Defendants No. 2 to 4, therefore the delay is neither deliberately nor intentionally.
It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court kindly be pleased to condone the delay for filing the Application for Recalling the Order in the above matter which is very much mandatory to decide the matter on merits instead of technicalities and further submitted that the Defendant No.2 having documentary evidences which is very much important to defend his rights and interest, therefore, the order may be recalled in the interest of justice.
Prayed Accordingly.
KARACHI
DATED: _______________
SIGNATURE OF ADVOCATE FOR THE DEFENDANTS NO 2 TO 4
FAQs
Q1. What is the basic legal principle behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
The underlying principle of Section 5 is that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, provided the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause for the delay. Courts generally lean in favour of deciding matters on their merits rather than dismissing them purely on procedural or technical grounds, such as a missed limitation period.
Q2. Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to all types of applications and appeals?
No. Section 5 applies to appeals and applications generally, but it specifically does not apply to execution applications filed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This exclusion is explicit in the statutory text itself, meaning condonation of delay cannot be sought for execution-related matters under this provision.
Q3. What exactly does “sufficient cause” mean under Section 5?
Courts have consistently held that “sufficient cause” must be reasonable, bona fide, and beyond mere negligence on the part of the applicant. Importantly, the length of the delay itself is less significant than the quality of the explanation provided; even a long delay may be condoned if properly explained, while even a short delay may be refused if the explanation suggests carelessness or deliberate inaction.
Q4. In what specific situations does a party typically need to file this application?
This application becomes necessary when an application for recalling an ex parte order is filed late, when an order was passed in the party’s absence and the limitation period for challenging it has expired, when a case was dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration is sought after delay, or when the right to file a written statement has closed, and recall of that closure is delayed.
Q5. Does the court decide the condonation application separately, or together with the main application?
The court first decides the Section 5 condonation application independently. Only after the delay is condoned does the court proceed to hear the underlying recall application, such as one filed under Section 151 CPC or Order IX Rule 7 or Rule 13 CPC, on its actual merits. If condonation is refused, the main application is not even examined on the merits.
Q6. Is it acceptable to use vague or general explanations for the delay in this application?
No. Courts expect the delay to be explained as specifically as possible and, where applicable, on a day-to-day basis. Vague statements without clear dates, reasons, or supporting circumstances are unlikely to satisfy the court that genuine sufficient cause exists. The applicant must clearly establish why each period of delay occurred and demonstrate that it was neither deliberate nor due to negligence.
Q7. Is the applicant required to prove they acted diligently apart from explaining the delay?
Yes, implicitly. Courts assess whether the applicant was careless, casual, or deliberate in failing to act within time. Simply citing a reason for absence is not enough; the overall conduct of the applicant, including whether they acted promptly once the obstacle was resolved, is also considered when determining whether sufficient cause genuinely exists.
Q8. Why is it important to file the recall application together with the Section 5 condonation application?
Since the limitation has already expired for the recall application itself, filing it without simultaneously seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 would mean the court cannot even entertain it. The two applications are filed together strategically. The condonation request removes the procedural barrier, allowing the substantive recall application to then be heard on its actual merits.
Disclaimer
The format and information provided above are for educational and reference purposes only. They are intended to offer general guidance on legal drafting and procedure and should not be treated as legal advice. Each case depends on its own specific facts, applicable law, and court practice; therefore, users are advised to modify the format according to their particular circumstances and seek professional legal advice as necessary.