The judgment emphasizes the requirement of showing a sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and highlights that delay condonation should not be based on laches and negligence.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order in I.A.No.366 of 2019 of learned Principal District Judge, Nellore.

2. The facts leading to the present Revision Petition are as mentioned below:

A woman and her two sons together filed O.S.No.14 of 2009 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur of Nellore District seeking partition of plaint schedule properties and grant separate possession of 1/3rd share of plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. The said suit was laid against 5 defendants and on contest issues were settled and suit was tried and by a judgment dated 28.11.2017, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. While answering the contested facts, the learned trial Court observed that plaint schedule properties were not available for partition and they were personal properties of defendant No.1.

3. The plaintiffs who lost the suit by the judgment dated 28.11.2017 intended to prefer an appeal and the time available for preferring the appeal was up to 28.11.2017. By that outer date they did not prefer the appeal. However long thereafter, those three plaintiffs filed I.A.No.366 of 2019 under Section 5 of Limitation Act and under Section 151 of CPC before learned Principal District Judge, Nellore seeking to condone delay in presenting the appeal. That petition was filed by all the three plaintiffs and in support of the petition, a sworn affidavit of the first plaintiff was filed. Defendants/respondents filed their counter. After due inquiry, the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore dismissed the petition. It is that order which is assailed in the present revision petition. In the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge mentioned that while the delay is more than 400 days, the affidavit and the petition mentioned the delay as 83 days. In the opinion of that Court, the said petition seeking condonation of delay was prepared with such a negligence. It is further recorded that the condonation petition was filed on the premise that the first plaintiff is aged and has been sick and was unable to meet her counsel to have the appeal presented and that occasioned the delay but the fact remained that her sons who are also the plaintiffs and petitioners in I.A.No.366 of 2019 were capable of perusing their legal remedies in presenting the appeal but they did not do so. Such long delay was not satisfactorily explained and therefore, the learned first appellate Court refused to condone the delay.

4. In the present Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel for petitioners K.Pallavi appearing for them argued that it was poor health condition of first revision petitioner that caused the delay and the nature of litigation is one for partition and an appeal could be considered as continuation of suit and in such event, the learned Principal District Judge, ought to have adopted liberal approach in condoning the delay and such liberal approach is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag V. Mst.Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353.

1. “Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”

2. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

3. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

4. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay. Every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rat