Distinction between sufficient cause and good cause

Limitation Act, 1963
S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Meaning of - Distinction between sufficient cause and good cause -
Held, sufficient cause means a cause for which a party could not be blamed for his absence - A party should not have
acted with negligence or lack of bona fides - Degree of proof is less in case of good cause whereas it is higher in case of
sufficient cause,
Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81

Constitution of India
Art. 14 - Held, Art. 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud even by extending wrong decisions made in other
cases - It has only positive aspects and negative equality is not envisaged thereunder - Any relief granted by
inadvertence or mistake cannot create a legal right to get the same relief - Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and
cannot be enforced in a negative manner - If wrongs or illegality or irregularity had been committed in earlier
proceedings, then similarly situated persons cannot invoke jurisdiction of courts for repeating or multiplying such illegality
- Art. 14 cannot be stretched to make administration impossible, 
Limitation
Condonation of delay
Approach of courts while condoning delay - Held, discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously based on
facts and circumstances of each case - `Sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of
bona fides is attributed to the party - Even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when prescribed by statute - Courts have no choice but to give effect to the same - Result flowing from
statutory provision is never an evil - Inconvenience not ground for interpreting a statute - Courts do not have power to
extend period of limitation based on equitable grounds - If courts start substituting period of limitation then it would
amount to legislation, which is impermissible - If party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or inaction then there
cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay - There is no justification in condoning delay by imposing
conditions - Each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by Supreme
Court - If courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause was made out by imposing conditions then that would
amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature,
Limitation Act, 1963
S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Meaning of - Distinction between sufficient cause and good cause -
Held, sufficient cause means a cause for which a party could not be blamed for his absence - A party should not have
acted with negligence or lack of bona fides - Degree of proof is less in case of good cause whereas it is higher in case of
sufficient cause,

Limitation Act, 1963
Generally - Object of - Held, it is founded on public policy with aim of securing peace, to suppress fraud and perjury, to
quicken diligence and to prevent oppression - It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated
unexplainably and have become stale due to lapse of time, 
Limitation Act, 1963
S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Refusal of, in appeal for enhancement of compensation in land acquisition matters -
Legality of - Appellant-landowners preferring appeal before High Court after delay of five and a half years for
enhancement of compensation - High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently appeal of
the appellant-landowners - Before Supreme Court they contended that High Court erred in not condoning delay whereas
in earlier cases it had condoned delay by depriving landowners from interest for the delay period - Held, any order on
condonation of delay without considering sufficient cause unwarranted - Under these circumstances High Courts must
appreciate that they were deciding an application under Limitation Act and not writ petitions where condonation of
inordinate delay in exceptional circumstances is permissible - Benefit of illegal or irregular order cannot be extended to
those who are similarly situated - As appellant-landowners had not made out sufficient cause, rejection of their
application for condonation of delay was justified,