In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors decided on 27 Feb 2002 reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195 = 2002 AIR SCW 978 = AIR 2002 SC 1201 the apex court held that Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception. Relevant para is quoted below : “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory”.

 

1.     In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors decided on 27 Feb 2002 reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195 = 2002 AIR SCW 978 = AIR 2002 SC 1201 the apex court held that Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception. Relevant para is quoted below :

 

“9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory”.