EXPIRY OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD WHEN COURT IS CLOSED – SECTION 4  applies to suit, appeals or applications.  It is the privilege given to the plaintiff or appellant or the applicant to institute suit or prefer appeal or make application on the reopening day of the court, if the prescribed period of limitation expires on a day when the court is closed. ▪ Case laws - (i) if the offices of the court are open during holidays and there is also a judge or clerk of the court for the purpose of attending to plaints, appeals and applications, the court cannot be said to be closed. - K. Jagapath Rao Vs. Krishnaji gopal Naik and sons – 1956 SCC online AP 246. (ii) Saturday is a court working day although the Judges are not sitting on that day and even in the vacation, the court is not closed. - Gopal Chandra Ghosh Vs Renu Bala Majumdar and another – 1994 (2) SCC 258. (iii) when the staff are on strike, neither the Presiding Officer of the court nor any other officer authorized to receive plaint was present in court on the specified days – then the court would be deemed to be closed for the purpose of limitation. - Basanta Kumar Nath and another Vs Lakshma Moninath and others – AIR 1968 ASSAM 57. 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.