How to draft a delay condonation application using AI

In this article, I am going to share a methodology that will help you completely transform how you handle a delay condonation application—one of the most challenging scenarios in litigation, when deadlines are missed and everything seems lost. We are not just learning to draft delay condonation applications but we are discovering how AI can turn procedural disasters into human stories that even the strictest judges cannot ignore.

Introduction

I received a phone call on a Friday afternoon when most advocates were winding for the weekend. The voice on the other end was trembling with panic, “I think I have lost everything.”

The caller was Karan Desai, a 68-year-old retired engineer whose entire life savings of ₹1.2 crores were invested in a real estate project that had become a nightmare. He had just discovered that the 60 day deadline for filing a second appeal from the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) had expired by 60 days.

But this was not just another case of missed deadlines. This was something far more heartbreaking.

During those crucial 60 days, Karan had been undergoing dialysis three times a week for chronic kidney disease. His 82 year old mother had suffered a massive stroke and was fighting for her life in intensive care. As her only son and primary caregiver, he faced an impossible choice between saving his mother and saving his life savings.

“Mr. Desai,” I said, trying to keep my voice steady, “I have handled such a case earlier and the delay can be condoned in your case, considering the medical reasons.”

He said with a glimmer of hope in his voice, “I have been to different advocates and all said the delay is difficult to condone, but now I feel relieved.”

That was the moment I realised something profound: most lawyers approach delay condonation applications as if they are asking for judicial charity rather than demanding justice. 

Most of the time, these applications are drafted like some weak, apologetic application that sounds more like excuses rather than a compelling call for legal intervention.

What if you were told that there is a completely different approach to it? 

What if AI could help you transform this into a strategic legal advocacy that would compel the court to confront fundamental questions about what justice really means?

That evening, I spent roughly two hours understanding how this AI method would help me turn Karan’s situation around by helping me draft a perfect delay condonation application. 

The result? 

The Bombay High Court not only granted condonation but specifically noted that the application “presents compelling circumstances warranting judicial intervention despite technical non-compliance.”

But here is what made this breakthrough even more significant: I realized that AI was not just helping me draft better applications, it was teaching me to think more strategically about human stories and legal frameworks working together.

In my previous article, I had shown you how to draft a stay application using AI, so today, I am going to share a new methodology with you to draft a delay condonation application using AI.

But first, let us understand exactly when and why these applications are necessary.

When and why do you need to file a delay condonation application?

We have all been there, you miss a deadline to file something, then in that case, you need to file an application for condonation of delay. 

It is filed to request the Court to excuse a delay in filing a petition, like a Special Leave Petition, beyond the prescribed time limit.

It is necessary to file such an application when unforeseen circumstances, such as administrative delays or logistical issues, prevent timely filing and you need the court to overlook the delay so the case can be heard on its merits.

Such an application ensures that genuine claims are not dismissed purely on technical grounds.

Now let us examine the essential components of a delay condonation application..

What are the components of a delay condonation application?

• The application must refer to the main matter and the impugned order being challenged, including the date of the Order.

• There should be a specific and clear explanation of the timeline of events leading to the delay, such as when the certified copy was applied for and received and any other logistical issues.

• It is also necessary to mention and explain that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but due to sufficient cause, like administrative delays.

• The application should annex relevant documents, such as receipts for certified copy applications, to substantiate the delay.

• A prayer must be made to condone the specific period of delay (e.g., 30 days) to allow the main matter to be heard on the merits.

• The application must state that it is filed bona fide and in the interest of justice to ensure the case is not dismissed on technical grounds.

Now, let me reveal how AI can transform the drafting process of this application.

How to use AI to draft a delay condonation application?

I am going to take you behind the scenes of the breakthrough methodology I developed during Karan’s case, the same approach that transformed my practice.

So today, I am going to teach you the step-by-step process that changes everything about how you approach drafting these applications.

Let me begin with the first step

Step 1: Foundation phase

The foundation phase involves making AI grasp the human dimensions before diving into legal technicalities. 

You are programming AI to approach the entire drafting process with appropriate gravity and strategic thinking rather than mechanical template generation. 

This preliminary step separates compelling applications from routine procedural filings.

I will demonstrate using ChatGPT for this application.

Here is my strategic prompt:

“I need to draft a delay condonation application for a RERA second appeal as per section 58 of RERA Act, where a 68-year-old man with chronic kidney disease missed the 60-day deadline because he was undergoing dialysis, caring for his stroke-victim mother, and trying to understand complex legal documents as a layperson. Help me create a compelling application that shows why human circumstances require judicial intervention despite technical non-compliance.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“I understand this involves both legal requirements and deeply human circumstances. To create a compelling application, I need to know specific health challenges during the limitation period, timeline of family medical emergencies, how his age and lack of legal background affected his ability to comply, evidence available to support these circumstances, and the broader impact on his case. This isn’t just about explaining delay – it’s about showing why justice requires flexibility when vulnerable people face genuine crises.”

Notice how this foundation immediately elevates the entire approach?

The brilliance lies in getting AI to understand that we are dealing with constitutional questions about access to justice, not just procedural technicalities. 

Never make the mistake of jumping straight into drafting without establishing this strategic mindset, as it determines the quality of everything that follows. 

This foundational understanding ensures every subsequent step serves both legal requirements and moral imperatives.

Step 2: Comprehensive factual circumstances

Now we transition from strategic understanding to detailed factual analysis, but with a focus on demonstrating genuine impediments rather than mere explanations. 

This phase involves organising complex personal circumstances into legally compelling narratives that show the impossibility of compliance.

My prompt is as follows:

“Here are the complete circumstances requiring strategic presentation:

The Person:

• Karan Desai, age 68, retired engineer with no legal background
• Chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis 3x weekly at Kokilaben Hospital
• Primary caregiver for 82-year-old mother
• Life savings of ₹1.2 crores invested in the delayed project

The Timeline Crisis:

• 10th March to 5th April (26 days): Kidney disease deteriorated, increased dialysis frequency, physically unable to handle stress
• 6th April to 28th April (22 days): Struggling as elderly layperson to understand 184-page technical MREAT order, gathering scattered documents
• 29th April to 8th June (40 days): Mother suffered massive stroke on 2nd May, hospitalized, intensive care, impossible choice between family duty and legal obligations

The Evidence:

• Medical records showing deteriorating kidney condition
• Hospital documentation of mother’s stroke and intensive care
• Consultation records with multiple advocates
• Project documents proving complexity of gathering materials

This isn’t about excuses – it’s about showing genuine human limitations that any reasonable person would understand.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“This presents a compelling case where technical compliance was genuinely impossible. I can structure this to show that each period of delay connects to verifiable medical crises, the applicant demonstrated extraordinary good faith despite overwhelming obstacles, granting condonation serves RERA’s consumer protection mandate, and denial would punish vulnerable people for circumstances beyond their control. I’ll draft this to show the court that justice requires looking beyond procedures to see the human beings whose lives depend on legal protection.”

See how AI now understands both the factual complexity and strategic implications? 

This comprehensive approach ensures that subsequent drafting will address every aspect of the delay while maintaining focus on genuine impossibility rather than mere difficulty. 

With this foundation established, we can now tackle precise legal drafting.

Step 3: Opening paragraphs

Opening paragraphs must establish both legal context and moral urgency without appearing to seek sympathy rather than justice. 

The goal is to make judges understand that this case tests fundamental principles about whether law serves people or abandons them in crisis.

To achieve that, I gave the following prompt:

” Based on earlier prompts, draft the opening section that establishes why this case demands judicial intervention despite technical non-compliance. Show that RERA’s consumer protection mandate requires considering human circumstances, technical limitations shouldn’t defeat substantive rights of vulnerable homebuyers, and this elderly, sick citizen exemplifies why the law must consider human realities. Make it legally sound but morally compelling.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“This application seeks condonation of 60 days delay where circumstances exemplify why constitutional access to justice must extend to vulnerable citizens facing genuine crises. 

The applicant is a 68-year-old retired engineer suffering from chronic kidney disease who represents his own life savings of ₹1.2 crores invested in the delayed project. His circumstances during the limitation period demonstrate precisely why procedural technicalities cannot defeat access to justice for vulnerable citizens.

RERA’s consumer protection mandate requires courts to ensure that procedural requirements do not defeat substantive rights of homebuyers, particularly those who demonstrate good faith despite facing genuine medical and family impediments.”

The strategy involves showing courts that granting condonation advances justice while denial betrays fundamental legal values. 

Step 4: Day-by-day explanation 

This phase requires showing that every day of delay resulted from genuine impediments that would overwhelm any reasonable person in similar circumstances.

Courts need to see a detailed timeline proving impossibility rather than mere difficulty or inconvenience.

My prompt is as follows:

“Based on earlier prompts, explain the day-by-day reality showing why compliance was impossible. Structure it showing 26 days of kidney disease deterioration and dialysis complications, 22 days of elderly layperson struggling with complex legal documents, and 40 days of mother’s stroke creating impossible family obligations. Show the genuine medical crisis, how he tried to balance competing obligations, and the physical impossibility of legal compliance. Reference medical documentation.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“From 10th March to 5th April 2024, spanning 26 days, the applicant’s chronic kidney disease severely deteriorated following the stress of receiving the devastating MREAT order. His condition required increased dialysis frequency at Kokilaben Hospital from twice to thrice weekly, with each session lasting 4-5 hours and leaving him physically and emotionally drained. Medical records reveal that during this period, he suffered multiple episodes of severe fatigue, nausea, and disorientation that made concentrated mental work impossible.

From 6th April to 28th April 2024, covering 22 days, despite his compromised health, the applicant made extraordinary efforts to understand the complex 184-page MREAT order. As a 68-year-old retired engineer with no legal background, he required extensive assistance to comprehend technical legal concepts while simultaneously gathering project documents dating back over a decade. These documents were scattered across his residences in Mumbai and Pune, requiring multiple trips that his dialysis schedule and physical condition made extremely challenging.

From 29th April to 8th June 2024, encompassing 40 days, the applicant faced an impossible moral and practical dilemma when his 82-year-old mother suffered a massive stroke on 2nd May 2024. As her only son and primary caregiver, he was torn between his legal obligations regarding his investment and his duty to the woman who gave him life. The following weeks became a nightmare of rushing between dialysis sessions for himself, intensive care visits for his mother, and desperate attempts to salvage the legal appeal that represented his life savings.”

This chronological approach makes judges feel the overwhelming nature of circumstances rather than just understanding them intellectually. 

The strategy involves showing progressive impossibility, where each day brought new crises that would defeat any reasonable person’s ability to pursue legal remedies. 

A detailed timeline prevents courts from thinking the applicant simply forgot about the deadline until it was convenient to remember.

Step 5: Constitutional and statutory connection

This phase elevates individual circumstances to broader legal principles that make condonation serve justice rather than merely excuse delay. You are connecting personal tragedy to fundamental questions about what kind of legal system serves constitutional values.

My prompt is as follows:

“Connect Karan’s story to RERA’s larger consumer protection mandate. Show how this case exemplifies why limitation law must serve justice, not defeat it. Address how his circumstances represent vulnerable homebuyers RERA protects, why technical compliance would reward developer exploitation, and how his case depends on courts prioritizing justice over procedure. Make it detailed.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“The applicant’s circumstances exemplify precisely the type of vulnerable consumer that RERA was enacted to protect. He represents elderly citizens who invest their life savings in homes, only to face developer exploitation and the additional burden of navigating complex legal procedures while dealing with life’s inevitable crises. Denying condonation in this case would send a chilling message that the law abandons its most vulnerable citizens precisely when they need protection most.

This occurs when illness, family tragedy, and financial ruin converge to make legal compliance impossible despite best efforts and good faith. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection requires that access to justice not be conditional on citizens’ ability to compartmentalize personal tragedies when pursuing legal remedies.”

This constitutional connection transforms individual hardship into broader legal principles that courts must consider. 

Step 6: Prayer clause

The prayer clause must reflect both human stakes and legal requirements while making condonation feel inevitable rather than discretionary. 

The goal is to request relief that serves justice rather than merely helping an individual applicant.

My prompt is as follows:

“Draft the final prayer clause for a delay condonation application before the Bombay High Court in a RERA second appeal. The delay is of 60 days. The prayer should request condonation, admission of the appeal, cost, and any other appropriate reliefs. Use concise, formal language as per standard Bombay High Court practice.”

This is the result generated by ChatGPT:

“The Applicant most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present second appeal.

That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Registry to provide the registered number of the present Appeal and take the present Appeal on record.

For cost.

For such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

This approach makes granting relief serve legal principles rather than merely helping one person. 

Step 7: Court format integration

The final phase involves adapting compelling AI-generated content to specific court formatting requirements while maintaining narrative power. This stage transforms strategic content into filing-ready applications that comply with all procedural requirements.

My format integration prompt:

“Adapt our compelling human story content into the exact Bombay High Court Civil Appellate jurisdiction format required. Follow every heading, formatting requirement, and structural element precisely while maintaining the emotional and legal impact we have developed. Use the specific case details: Karan Desai vs Golden Heights Developers Ltd., MREAT order dated 10th March 2024, 60-day delay, ₹1.2 crore investment, kidney disease and mother’s stroke circumstances. Maintain continuous numbering and mention prayer clauses a, b, c and d.”

This is the application as generated by AI.

Now here is the same application with my professional corrections:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. _______ OF 2025

  IN 

SECOND APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2024 

In the matter between:

Versus

TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE 

AND THE OTHER HONOURABLE PUISNE JUDGES 

OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

INTERIM APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

1. This application seeks condonation of 60 days delay where circumstances exemplify why constitutional access to justice must extend to vulnerable citizens facing genuine crises. 

2. That Tthe applicant is a 68-year-old retired engineer suffering from chronic kidney disease who had invested represents his own life savings of ₹1.2 crores invested in the delayed subject project. His circumstances during the limitation period demonstrate precisely why procedural technicalities cannot defeat access to justice for vulnerable citizens.

3. That RERA’s consumer protection mandate requires this Hon’ble Ccourts to ensure that procedural requirements do not defeat substantive rights of homebuyers, particularly those who demonstrate good faith despite facing genuine medical and family impediments.

4. That fFrom 10th March to 5th April 2024, spanning 26 days, the applicant’s chronic kidney disease severely deteriorated following the stress of receiving the devastating MREAT order. His condition required increased dialysis frequency at Kokilaben Hospital from twice to thrice weekly, with each session lasting 4-5 hours and leaving him physically and emotionally drained. Medical records reveal that during this period, he suffered multiple episodes of severe fatigue, nausea, and disorientation that made concentrated mental work impossible.Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit “A(colly.)” are the medical records showing the applicant’s deteriorating condition.

5. That fFrom 6th April to 28th April 2024, covering 22 days, despite his compromised health, the applicant made extraordinary efforts to understand the complex 184-page MREAT order. As a 68-year-old retired engineer with no legal background, he required extensive assistance to comprehend technical legal concepts while simultaneously gathering project documents dating back over a decade. These documents were scattered across his residences in Mumbai and Pune, requiring multiple trips that his dialysis schedule and physical condition made extremely challenging. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit “B(colly.)” are the legal consultation receipts and records evidencing the efforts of the Applicant.

6. That fFrom 29th April to 8th June 2024, encompassing 40 days, the applicant faced an impossible moral and practical dilemma when his 82-year-old mother suffered a massive stroke on 2nd May 2024 requiring immediate hospitalisation at Lilavati Hospital. As her only son and primary caregiver, he was torn between his legal obligations regarding his investment and his duty towards his mother the woman who gave him life.

7. The following weeks caused emotional trauma of managing his own dialysis treatment while watching his mother fight for her life, all while knowing each passing day threatened his life savings, created unbearable stress.became a nightmare of rushing between dialysis sessions for himself, intensive care visits for his mother, and desperate attempts to salvage the legal appeal that represented his life savings.Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit “C(colly.)” are the hospital records of the medical condition of the mother of the Applicant.

8.The applicant’s circumstances exemplify precisely the type of vulnerable consumer that RERA was enacted to protect. He represents elderly citizens who invest their life savings in homes, only to face developer exploitation and the additional burden of navigating complex legal procedures while dealing with life’s inevitable crises. Denying condonation in this case would send a chilling message that the law abandons its most vulnerable citizens precisely when they need protection most. This occurs when illness, family tragedy, and financial ruin converge to make legal compliance impossible despite best efforts and good faith. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection requires that access to justice not be conditional on citizens’ ability to compartmentalize personal tragedies when pursuing legal remedies.

9a.The Applicant most humbly prays that:

a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present second appeal.

b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Registry to provide the registered number of the present Appeal and take the present Appeal on record.

c. For cost.

d. For such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Conclusion

What you have just witnessed represents a fundamental transformation in how legal professionals can approach seemingly impossible procedural challenges. Through systematic AI collaboration, we converted what appeared to be a hopeless limitation disaster into a compelling narrative that forces courts to confront fundamental questions about justice and human dignity.

The methodology I developed during Karan’s case has become the foundation for handling the most challenging limitation situations: AI manages the structural complexity and narrative development while human expertise provides strategic direction, constitutional analysis, and moral framework. This partnership creates results that transcend what either could achieve independently.

Consider the broader implications: when advocates learn to harness AI strategically, they can transform personal tragedies into powerful legal arguments that serve not just individual clients but broader principles of constitutional justice. This approach elevates legal practice from mere technical compliance to advocacy that advances human dignity through law.

The future belongs to advocates who understand that AI is not a replacement for legal judgment but an amplifier for strategic thinking and compassionate advocacy. You now possess the exact methodology that can transform your approach to even the most desperate procedural situations into opportunities for advancing justice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the limitations of using AI in drafting delay condonation applications?

AI lacks the nuanced judgment of a human lawyer and may miss subtle legal or cultural nuances, such as unlisted Bombay High Court procedural preferences. It also risks generating generic content if prompts are vague. Therefore, advocates must review AI drafts to ensure accuracy, relevance, and adherence to court standards.

2. What qualifies as “sufficient cause” for delay condonation in the Bombay High Court?

Sufficient cause includes genuine, unavoidable circumstances like medical emergencies or family crises, supported by evidence. 

3. What sets the AI-driven methodology apart from conventional legal drafting approaches?

Unlike traditional drafting, which often relies on generic drafts, the AI methodology starts with a human-centric foundation. The strategic use of AI, guided by human expertise, crafts applications that resonate with judges while meeting Bombay High Court standards.

4. Can AI’s methodology be applied to other legal documents, and how?

Yes, the methodology is adaptable to various legal documents, such as writ petitions, contracts, or affidavits. The key is structuring prompts to capture the case’s human and legal dimensions. For example, prompts can outline client circumstances, legal frameworks, and jurisdictional requirements. AI can then generate drafts as per your requirements.