Admittedly there was wide-spread strike by non-gazetted officers between 5th September to 13th October, 1980. State filed an appeal on 18th October, 1980. Period of limitation had expired on 12th October, 1980. Application was filed for condonation of delay on ground of general strike. How would you decide?

Governing rule

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay in an appeal only when the appellant shows “sufficient cause” for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. held that the applicant must explain not only the delay beyond limitation but also why the appeal was not filed even on the last day of limitation. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, the Court further said that the sufficient cause must arise from an event or circumstance within the limitation period itself.

Effect of strike

A strike may, in a proper case, be sufficient cause if it actually disables the party from filing the appeal and is shown with particulars. But a mere assertion that there was a strike is not enough. The court looks to the real effect of the strike on the litigant’s ability to act, not to the label used in the affidavit.

The commentary records that when there was a strike by advocates of districts, a short delay was condoned, but the court still examined whether the explanation was bona fide and whether the party acted diligently. It also notes that the State is not entitled to greater indulgence than a private litigant merely because it is the State.

Applying the facts

Here the limitation expired on 12 October 1980, and the appeal was filed on 18 October 1980, so the delay is only six days. The strike ran from 5 September to 13 October 1980, which means the crucial question is whether the strike really made filing impossible on or before 12 October and whether the appeal was filed immediately after the strike ended. Since 13 October was within the strike period’s tail end and 18 October came only a few days later, the explanation looks facially plausible, but it still needs proof of actual obstruction.

If the State can show that the relevant offices, counsel, or departmental machinery could not function because of the strike, and that papers were moved without avoidable delay once normal working resumed, the delay should ordinarily be condoned. If, however, the record shows lethargy, unexplained inter-departmental delay, or lack of any attempt to prepare the appeal during the strike period, the application should fail.

Illustrations

1. If a filing office is closed or effectively non-functional because the officers responsible for signing and dispatching the appeal are on strike, and the appeal is filed promptly after work resumes, the delay is likely to be excused.

2. If the department had already prepared the file before 12 October but still waited until 18 October without a satisfactory reason, the strike will not justify the delay.

3. If the affidavit merely says “there was a general strike” but does not state who was affected, what steps were taken, and why filing was impossible on the last day of limitation, the court should reject condonation.

Relevant case law

In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the court must first be satisfied that sufficient cause existed throughout the period of default. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, the Court reaffirmed that limitation must be applied with full rigour and cannot be relaxed on sympathy alone. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, the Court accepted that some latitude may be given to the State machinery, but only where the delay is bona fide and properly explained. In U.O.I. v. Union Builders, a short delay was condoned because the surrounding facts showed diligence and a practical obstruction to timely filing.

Decision

On these facts, I would not reject the application merely because the appeal was filed after the expiry of limitation by six days. A widespread strike of non-gazetted officers during the decisive period can constitute sufficient cause if it genuinely prevented filing and the State acted with reasonable promptitude after 13 October 1980. But the condonation should be granted only on proof, not on assumption; if the explanation is vague or unsupported, Section 5 cannot be invoked to rescue the appeal.