Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 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.
Explanation.— The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 5
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 confers discretionary power upon courts to admit any appeal or application after the prescribed period upon proof of 'sufficient cause'.
Significantly, Section 5 applies strictly to appeals, review petitions, revision petitions, and miscellaneous interlocutory applications; it has no application to the institution of original suits. The applicant must account for the delay by showing bona fide circumstances beyond their reasonable control, absence of gross negligence, and lack of deliberate inaction.
Under Section 5, the applicant must file a separate, supported affidavit explaining each day's delay after the expiry of the prescribed period. While bona fide administrative processing delays in government departments receive considerate appraisal (*Katiji*), recent rulings (*Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.*) affirm that public authorities cannot claim blanket immunity from diligent prosecution.