Key Points: - (!) The judgment emphasizes that unless mala fides are writ large, delay should generally be condoned to allow contested merits (Limitation Act, Section 5) and avoid a straight jacket formula; each case must be weighed on its facts. (!) - (!) Condonation should consider that two months and a few days of delay were not fatal to the appeal for default, and the matter should be decided on merits rather than dismissing on technicalities. (!) - (!) The court remitted the matter to the Executing Court to decide the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on merits and in accordance with law, highlighting ends of justice and liberal condonation in appropriate circumstances. (!) - (!) There is encouragement to proceed with merits-focused adjudication to avoid denying justice due to procedural delays, especially where the delay is not grossly inexcusable. (!) - (!) The appellant’s conduct and reasons for delay (including communication failures by counsel) were weighed; the court found delay not so huge as to warrant dismissal on hyper-technical grounds and allowed limited relief with conditions (costs, payment to respondent, etc.). (!) (!) - (!) The decision reiterates that ends of justice may be met by setting aside certain orders and remitting for merits-based consideration, with costs imposed. (!) (!)

What is the standard for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in appeals, and when should delay be condoned?

What are the circumstances under which an appeal/objection should be considered on merits rather than dismissed for delay?

What is the proper remedy when a party’s delay is not mala fide but caused by non-communication or attorney's conduct, and how should the matter be remitted for decision on merits?