EXTENSION OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN CERTAIN CASES [SECTION 5]  not applicable to suits and applications under Order 21 of CPC;  Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to seek condonation of delay for applications to set-aside ex-parte orders made under Order XXI, Rule 106(1) of CPC – Krishnaiah Vs S. Prasada Rao – AIR 2010 AP 19.  Abdul Jabbar vs. S.N.A. Nazarath - 2000 (2) ALD 339 - No separate petition is necessary u/s 5 of Limitation Act, when filed along with a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside exparte decree, if grounds in both the applications are one and the same.  SBH, L.B.Nagar Branch vs Y. Venkata Reddy - 2002 (1) ALT 391 - Sec.5 of Limitation can be applied to condone delay in filing an application to pass a final decree.  Katiji Vs Land Acquisition Officer, Anantanag – AIR 1987 SC 1353 – each days delay need not be explained.  Kiran Krishna Real Estate and Constructions (P) Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. P.V.A. Prasad - 2023 (3) ALT 68 - Sufficient cause must be shown to the satisfaction of the court for non-appearance.  Warlu Vs Gangotri Bai – AIR 1994 SC 466 – court must be satisfied with such sufficient cause.  Vedabai Vs S.B. Patil and others – AIR 2001 SC 2582 – in condonation of delay, the expression sufficient cause must be construed liberally for advancing substantial justice.  Bongaigaon Stores & Anr. Vs Moolchand Kucheria & Ors. - 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 369 (Gauhati) - Whenever an application for condonation of delay is filed it is to be decided first and if delay is not condoned then application/appeal/revision cannot be entertained.