Introduction
Every civil application and appeal in Pakistan has a limitation period attached to it. Miss that period, even by a single day, and the court cannot ordinarily entertain the application at all. The remedy is an Application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed to ask the court to condone the delay and admit the application despite being time barred.
This is one of the most frequently filed applications in civil practice, and also one of the most frequently mishandled. Lawyers often treat it as a routine formality attached to the real application (a recall, a restoration, an appeal) instead of what it actually is: a separate application that the court decides first, on its own merits, before it will even look at the substantive request behind it.
Get the sufficient cause explanation wrong, and the main application never gets heard at all, no matter how strong it is.
Verified Legal Text: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908
Section 5, titled “Extension of period in certain cases,” reads:
“Any appeal or application for a revision or a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, 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.”
Explanation: The fact that the appellant or applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
Two points matter for drafting purposes. First, the section itself only applies where another enactment “makes it applicable” to a particular kind of application. This is exactly why applications for restoration under Order IX CPC, recall of orders under Section 151 CPC, and similar applications routinely invoke Section 5 alongside their own provision.
Second, the Explanation clause gives one specific, statutorily recognized example of sufficient cause: being misled by the court’s own order, practice, or judgment about how the limitation period was to be computed.
That is a narrow, specific ground, and should not be confused with the broader “sufficient cause” standard developed through case law, which covers a much wider range of genuine circumstances.
What Sufficient Cause Actually Means in Practice
The Act itself does not define “sufficient cause.” Courts have filled that gap through consistent principles applied over decades:
Each case turns on its own facts, and there is no fixed formula. The explanation must be reasonable and genuine, not a cover for negligence. The length of the delay matters less than the quality of the explanation. A two year delay explained with specific, verifiable facts can succeed where a two week delay explained vaguely will not.
The applicant’s overall conduct is examined too, including whether they acted promptly once the obstacle causing the delay was actually removed.
What this means practically: an application built around dates, specific events, and supporting documents has a real chance. An application built around a general statement that the delay “was not deliberate” does not.
When You Actually Need This Application
An Application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act becomes necessary in situations such as:
An application to recall an ex parte order is being filed after the limitation period for that recall has already run out. An order was passed in the client’s absence, and by the time they found out, the window to challenge it had closed. A case was dismissed for non prosecution, and the restoration application is being filed late.
The right to file a written statement was closed, and the recall application seeking to reopen that right is itself time barred.
In each of these, the substantive application (recall, restoration) cannot even be examined by the court until the Section 5 application is decided first.
Step by Step Procedure
- Identify exactly how many days the substantive application is late, counted from the date the limitation period expired to the date of actual filing. Precision here matters. A vague reference to “some delay” invites the court to ask for exact figures anyway.
- Gather concrete proof for each period of delay. Medical certificates, travel documents, correspondence with counsel, or any paper trail that supports the explanation should be collected before drafting begins.
- Draft the Section 5 application separately from the main application, even though both are typically filed together. The condonation application should stand on its own, explaining the delay day by day where the gap is significant, rather than folding a one line excuse into the main petition.
- File both applications together before the same court that will hear the substantive matter. The Section 5 application accompanies the main application (for example, an application for recalling order under Section 151 CPC, or a restoration application under Order IX Rule 7 or Rule 13 CPC).
- Support the application with an affidavit confirming the facts stated, particularly where personal circumstances such as illness, travel, or family emergencies are involved.
- The court examines the Section 5 application first. If satisfied of sufficient cause, it condones the delay. Only then does it proceed to examine the substantive application on its own merits.
- If condonation is refused, the main application is not examined at all, regardless of how strong its merits might otherwise be. This is why the Section 5 application deserves as much drafting attention as the application it is protecting.
Documents to Prepare Before Filing
Certified copy of the order or the case record showing the exact date from which limitation began to run. Proof supporting the reason for delay: medical certificates, travel records, a death certificate and iddat related documents where a family bereavement is involved, or correspondence showing when the client actually learned of the order.
A day wise timeline note for your own drafting reference, mapping the gap between when limitation expired and when the application is actually being filed. Vakalatnama, where filed through counsel. A copy of the substantive application (recall, restoration) that the condonation is meant to unlock.
Where These Applications Commonly Fail
A general statement that the delay was “neither deliberate nor intentional,” without dates or specifics, rarely satisfies a court on its own. Courts expect the delay explained period by period, not summarized in a single sentence.
No supporting proof for the stated reason. A claimed illness, absence abroad, or family emergency carries far more weight when backed by a document than when asserted alone.
Treating the Section 5 application as an afterthought attached to the main application, instead of a standalone submission that gets decided first. Judges frequently send applications back for this reason alone, asking counsel to properly particularize the delay.
Delay in filing the condonation application itself after the client becomes aware of the missed deadline. Courts often ask why, once the problem was discovered, there was a further gap before the Section 5 application was filed.
Relying only on the Explanation clause (being misled by a court order or practice) when the actual facts do not fit it. That ground is narrow and specific; most genuine delay cases succeed instead on the broader case law standard of sufficient cause, not this Explanation.
Practical Drafting Tips
Structure the application around a clear day wise account wherever the delay runs into weeks or months, rather than a single paragraph summary.
Where the delay is due to the client’s absence or unawareness, state specifically when and how they learned of the order, since this establishes both the cause of the delay and how promptly they acted once it ended.
Keep the Section 5 application legally separate from the substantive application in drafting, even when filed as a joint submission, so the court can rule on condonation cleanly before turning to the merits.
Avoid arguing the merits of the underlying dispute inside the condonation application itself. The only question at this stage is whether sufficient cause exists for the delay, not who is right in the case.
Format of Application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay
The format is given below:
IN THE COURT OF __________ SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KARACHI DISTRICT ___________
CIVIL SUIT NO: ______ OF 20____
ABC PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
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. Defendant No. 4, namely: _________________, had travelled to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to perform religious obligations.
She was not present in Pakistan and was also unaware of the Order dated: ______________ in the above matter. Defendant No. 2 was also unable to appear before the Honorable Court due to a medical condition, which was duly informed to the Counsel, and such information was already shared by the Counsel for Defendants No. 2 to 4. The delay is therefore neither deliberate nor intentional.
It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court kindly be pleased to condone the delay in 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. It is further submitted that Defendant No. 2 has documentary evidence 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
Conclusion
An Application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is the door that has to open before any time barred application can be heard on its merits. The statutory standard is sufficient cause, and courts weigh the quality and specificity of that explanation far more heavily than the length of the delay itself. Applications that succeed are the ones built on dates, documents, and a genuine account of what actually happened, filed as a standalone submission rather than a one line excuse tacked onto the real request. Applications that fail are almost always the ones that treated this as a formality.
For related civil procedure work, see our guide on the Application for Recalling Order to restore the right to file a Written Statement, and for foundational drafting practice, see How to Draft a Vakalatnama in Pakistan.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What exactly does Section 5 of the Limitation Act allow a court to do?
It allows a court to admit an appeal, an application for revision or review, an application for leave to appeal, or any other application to which the section is made applicable by another enactment, even after the limitation period has expired, provided the applicant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for the delay.
Q2. Does Section 5 apply automatically to every type of civil application?
No. It applies specifically to appeals, applications for revision or review, applications for leave to appeal, and any other application to which the section has been made applicable by or under another enactment. This is why provisions such as Order IX CPC and Section 151 CPC are read together with Section 5 when seeking condonation for applications filed under them.
Q3. What does “sufficient cause” actually require?
The Limitation Act does not define the term, but courts have consistently required the explanation to be reasonable, genuine, and free of negligence on the applicant’s part. The length of the delay matters far less than how clearly and specifically it is explained.
Q4. Does the court decide the condonation application and the main application together?
No. The court decides the Section 5 application first, on its own. Only once the delay is condoned does the court proceed to examine the substantive application, such as a recall or restoration application, on its actual merits.
Q5. What happens if the condonation application is refused?
The substantive application is not examined at all. This is why the Section 5 application needs to be drafted with as much care and specificity as the main application it is meant to unlock.
Q6. Is a vague explanation such as “the delay was unintentional” enough to succeed?
Generally no. Courts expect the delay to be explained with specific dates and, where the gap is significant, on a day by day basis. A general assertion without supporting facts or documents is unlikely to satisfy the sufficient cause standard.
Q7. What is the significance of the Explanation clause attached to Section 5?
The Explanation specifically recognizes that being misled by an order, practice, or judgment of the High Court in computing the limitation period can itself amount to sufficient cause. This is a narrow, specific ground and is distinct from the broader sufficient cause standard developed through case law, which covers illness, absence, and other genuine circumstances.
Q8. Why should the condonation application be drafted separately even if filed together with the main application?
Because the court treats it as a distinct legal question decided before anything else. Folding the explanation into a single line inside the main application, rather than presenting it as its own reasoned submission, is one of the most common reasons these applications are sent back or dismissed.
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; users are advised to modify the format according to their particular circumstances and seek professional legal advice as necessary.