Rs 2,000 to each writ applicant, paid within four weeks, is the condition on which the UP Co-operative Federation gets its appeals heard. The Supreme Court has held that its 130-Day Delay deserved to be condoned, because it is the cause shown for a delay, and not its length, that decides whether it is excused.
New Delhi: Genuine administrative constraints amounted to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Supreme Court has held, setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that refused to condone a delay of 130 days in two intra-court appeals filed by the UP Co-operative Federation Limited [UP Co-operative Federation Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.].
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on September 29, 2026, granting leave in SLP (C) Nos. 32582-32583 of 2026, registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-13240 of 2026.
Length of delay versus the cause shown
The Bench framed the short question as whether, in the facts of the case, the delay ought to have been condoned, or whether the order rejecting the cause shown as insufficient deserved to be affirmed. Observing that no litigant benefits by approaching a court late, it said the expression “sufficient cause” must be applied in a pragmatic, justice-oriented manner. It held:
“However, short the delay may be, if the cause shown does not inspire confidence or it is not in the proximity of truth, the cause shown for delay cannot be accepted. Even, if the length of delay is too long and the cause shown is sufficient, as prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and if it would fall within ‘sufficient cause’, irrespective of the length of delay, same deserves to be condoned.”
Room for genuine administrative delay
Recalling that a certain latitude is extended to appeals by the State and its bodies where delay arises from administrative reasons that are genuine and bona fide, the Court said:
“When the officials who man the process of filing of the appeals does not exhibit lethargy, the cause shown for administrative delay cannot be ignored and right cause cannot be nipped at the bud by dismissing it on the technical ground of delay.”
How the appeals came to be late
The respondents had approached the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow with two writ petitions against an office memorandum dated July 4, 2018 issued by the Federation. A judgment dated February 29, 2024 allowed the petitions. A contempt petition followed, alleging non-compliance, and a contempt notice was issued.
The Federation then filed intra-court appeals, Special Appeal Defective Nos. 426 and 427 of 2024, along with applications for condonation of delay. By orders dated August 5, 2026, a Division Bench refused to condone the 130-day delay, holding that the cause had not been properly explained and was not satisfactory, and dismissed the appeals.
An election observer and a summer vacation
According to the Federation’s affidavit, the competent authority had to decide whether to appeal, while its Managing Director was serving as an election observer in Gujarat during the Lok Sabha elections between March and May 2024. The High Court was closed for summer vacation in June 2024. After returning, the Managing Director examined the judgment and, on legal advice, the appeals were filed on July 26, 2024.
“Thus, it can be seen that the Managing Director of the appellant Federation had been deputed as an election observer for the Lok Sabha Election, 2024 and for want of his administrative approval, the delay seems to have occasioned. The cause shown for the delay, thus cannot be construed as mala fide or the said delay being intentional.”
The condition: costs
The Court held the cause to be in the proximity of truth and within the ambit of sufficient cause. Mindful that the writ applicants had been made to defend the delay applications before two courts, it set aside the impugned order on a condition:
“…we set aside the impugned order conditionally, namely, by directing appellant(s) herein to pay costs to each of the writ applicant quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per person, payable within an outer limit of four weeks from today and only on production of proof of having paid the cost or deposited the cost, the appeals shall be taken up and heard on merits and in accordance with law.”
The High Court will decide the appeals on merits expeditiously, subject to cooperation by counsel, and the contempt proceedings will remain stayed while the appeals are pending.
Why the judgment matters
Condonation of delay turns on the quality of the explanation, not on a count of days, the ruling restates. A short delay with an unconvincing excuse can be refused, while a longer one backed by a genuine cause should be condoned, so that appeals are decided on merits rather than shut out on a technicality.
The judgment also shows how courts balance that latitude against fairness to the other side. Public bodies acting through officials may be given room for bona fide administrative delay, but the opposing litigants who were forced to contest it can be compensated through costs, and the appeal is heard only once those costs are paid.
Case Title: UP Co-operative Federation Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-13240 of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32582-32583 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Prem Prakash, AOR, with Vineeta Singh, Aditya Harsh, Deepali Nanda and Tarush, Advocates, for the appellant; Shishir Chandra, D.K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg (AOR), Abhishek Garg, Harsh Kumar Agarwal and Pradeep Kumar, Advocates, for the respondents