1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the contents of application which is filed for condonation of delay. He submits that the appellant/applicant was suffering from jaundice. To that effect the appellant/ applicant examined herself before the Lower Appellate Court. The doctor who issued such certificate was also examined. The applicant was hospitalized and admitted for considerable period. She was advised for bed rest for about one year. The age of the applicant is 72 years. Therefore, relying upon contents of the application for condonation of delay and the evidence brought on record before the Lower Appellate Court, the Counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal ought to have been condoned by the Lower Appellate Court by adopting liberal approach.

2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay. He submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the Regular Civil appeal. Said delay was not properly explained. The applicant was in hospital only for three months and therefore there was no reason to delay the filing of the appeal by 439 days. The Counsel invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Lower appellate Court and submitted that this appeal is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed. In the alternative, he submits that if this Court is inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay, in that case heavy costs may be imposed upon the appellant/applicant. He submits that the costs of Rs. 5,000/may be imposed on the appellant/applicant.

3. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions, perused the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, also perused the impugned judgment & order and other documents placed on record. I am of the considered opinion that the Second Appeal raises following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct in rejecting the application for condonation of delay though sufficient cause was disclosed in the application for condonation of delay?

ii) Whether in an application for condonation of delay, the Court can take hyper-technical view, thereby defeating rights of the parties to prosecute the substantial appeal?

4. Admit, on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. On admission, learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. With consent of parties, the Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

5. Upon perusal of contents of the application filed by the applicants it is undisputed position that the applicant is 72 years of age. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was suffering from jaundice. The contention of the non-applicant is that she was in hospital only for three months and therefore there is no sufficient cause disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, that why the appeal is not filed for considerable period.

6. Upon perusal of evidence of the applicant and the doctor, which is produced on record along with appeal, there is no manner of doubt that the applicant was suffering from jaundice and also she was required to take treatment in the hospital for months together. It is also stated by the applicant on oath that she was advised to take bed rest for one year.

7. It appears that the Lower Appellate Court was of the opinion that the delay in filing the application is not explained properly, since the applicant was in hospital for about three months. Upon perusal of evidence of the applicant, it appears that the applicant was advised to take bed rest. The applicant is 72 years of age and the doctor has also issued certificate that she was suffering from jaundice. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the length of delay itself is not only criteria or relevant factor while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. What matters is sufficient cause disclosed in