The judgment emphasizes the need for a liberal and pragmatic approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay, highlighting the elastic nature of the terms 'sufficient cause' and the importance of substantial justice.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed in MARJI No.334 of 2011 by the learned District Judge5, Aurangabad, whereby the application for condonation of delay of four 4 years and 10 months in filing the appeal before the first appellate Court, came to be dismissed.

2. The respondent (original plaintiff) instituted Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 2001 against the present appellant seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to protect his possession over the suit property survey no.164 situate behind Bibika Makbara, Pahadsingpura, Aurangabad.

The appellant resisted the suit by filing written statement. The trial Court recorded evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. After evaluating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on 30.08.2006 and granted the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent restraining the present appellant or anybody claiming through it from disturbing possession of the respondent over the abovementioned suit property.

3. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the trial Court with above numbered Misc. Civil Application for condonation of delay of 4 years 10 months in filing the appeal. The said application was contested by the respondent. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court dismissed that application on 01.08.2014. The appellant challenged that order of dismissal by filing Second Appeal (Stamp) No.29243 of 2014. After hearing both the parties, this Court partly allowed that appeal, set aside the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the first appellate Court and remanded the matter for being decided afresh after extending both the parties sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.

4. After remand of the matter, the learned Judge of the first appellate Court extended both the parties sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence in respect of their respective contentions. After considering that evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge of the first appellate Court again dismissed that Misc. Civil Application as per the impugned order 09.12.2015 holding that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

5. The learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India (“A.S.G.I.”, for short) appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Judge of the first appellate Court decided the Misc. Civil Application by taking a very pedantic and strict view. According to him, in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic view is required to be taken in order to do substantial justice. He submits that the dispute relates to immovable property, which is adjacent to the national monument 'Bibika Makbara'. The valuable rights of the appellant over the said property ought not to have been thrown away at the threshold on technical grounds. He submits that after the trial Court delivered the judgment, the appellant moved its Head Office situate in New Delhi, seeking permission to file an appeal. Due to some procedural lapse, the higher authority intimated the appellant about its decision of filing the appeal in November2010. The appellant informed the Advocate in the third week of November, 2010 to file an appeal, however, the landlord of the building, where the office of the Advocate was situate, took up the work of renovation of that building by demolishing it. The Advocate was required to shift his office hurriedly by packing his books, pending files, furnitures etc. in another office situate in Amodi Complex. It took 34 months for making some interior repairs in that office. The file of the present matter was not traceable since it was misplaced. After it was traced out, the appellant filed the appeal with the abovementioned Misc. Civil Application for condonation of delay. The learned A.S.G.I. submits that the delay has been sufficiently and satisfactorily explained by the app