Basawaraj v Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013)

CPC & Limitation Act · Adverse Possession, Extinguishment of Right (s.27) & Distinction from Estoppel

Facts.

A delay in filing was sought to be condoned on a routine, unsubstantiated explanation of official/personal reasons.

Issue.

Is a court bound to condone delay merely because some reason is offered, or must sufficient cause be genuinely established?

Held.

“Sufficient cause” must be proved, not presumed; the discretion under s.5 is to be exercised judicially and cannot rescue gross negligence, inaction or want of bona fides. A routine or vague explanation is not sufficient cause.

Why it matters.

The necessary counterweight to Katiji — liberality is not a licence; the applicant must actually make out a genuine cause (Topic 2).

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics