The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptability of the explanation for delay is crucial in the matter of delay condonation, and the court must advance substantial justice and compensate the opposite party for their loss when condoning the delay.

1. Heard Ms.Shivani Shah for the Petitioner and Mr.Sameer Bhalekar for Respondent.

2. Rule.

3. With consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order dated 1.12.2016 by which the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has refused to condone the delay in institution of a Revision against the Judgment and decree dated 4.1.2016 which directed eviction of the Petitioner. In this case, the delay in institution of the Revision was of 54 days. However, the Appeal Bench has come to the conclusion that no sufficient cause was shown and further cause which was shown was false and reason stated was also false.

5. The Petitioner in the Application seeking condonation of delay had stated that the matter was entrusted to one Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani for the purpose of institution of a Revision. However, there was delay on the part of Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani and therefore, the Revision could not be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation.

6. The Appeal Court has held that the material on record indicates that Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani had nothing to do with the matter and who was entrusted the matter, was Mr.Thakkar. The Appeal Court has held that since a false case was set out, there was no reason to condone the delay.

7. Ms.Shivani Shah learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that Mr.Mukesh Sangani was engaged to instruct Mr.Thakkar and it is in this context that reference was made to Mr.Mukesh Sangani. She points out that there was no intention to make any false statement or to suppress the facts. She points out that the Petitioner has really gained nothing by misstating or attempting to misstate any fact. She submits that this is a fit case for condonation of delay and at the highest, by imposition of some reasonable costs.

8. Mr.Sameer Bhalekar learned counsel for the Respondent submits that in such matters the quantum of delay is not relevant but, the cause shown is relevant. Since a false ground was raised, the Appeal Court was justified in declining the condonation. He submits that decree in the present case was made on 4.1.2016 and till date the decree has not been executed for reasons attributable to the Petitioner. Valuable time has been spent and severe prejudice will result to the Respondent if delay is condoned and Appeal is restored for hearing on merits.

9. In N.BALAKRISHNAN VS M.KRISHNAMURTHY reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 the Supreme Court has held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But, it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay, In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelleld by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The Supreme Court proceeds to observe that the reason for such a different stance is that the primary function of the court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but see