N. Balakrishnan v M. Krishnamurthy (1998)

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

Facts.

An application to set aside an ex-parte decree was filed after a delay of about 883 days; the delay was challenged as fatal by its sheer length.

Issue.

Is the length of the delay decisive in condonation, or the acceptability of the explanation for it?

Held.

The length of delay is not decisive; what matters is whether the explanation is acceptable and bona fide. A long delay may be condoned if well explained, and a short one refused if not — the court weighs the reason, not the calendar.

Why it matters.

Refines Katiji by focusing the s.5 enquiry on the quality of the explanation rather than the number of days (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