S.B. Shukre, J.

1. By this application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants, seek condonation of delay that has occurred in filing of the cross-objection. Clause (a) of the prayer made in the application indicates that, according to the claimants, there may be a delay of about 1243 days.

2. The ground stated in the application is that after admission of the appeal filed by the acquiring body on 10.11.2014 and waiving notice after admission by them on the very day, they could not file cross-objection due to financial constraints. It is further stated in the application that now the claimants have made necessary arrangements by mobilizing the funds and so are filing the cross-objection with an application filed for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that really speaking there is no delay because even though the appeal has been admitted, it is yet to be fixed for final disposal and the period of one month contemplated under Order 41, Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, "CPC") begins to run from the day on which notice for final hearing of the appeal is received by the party desirous of filing of cross-objection. He also submits that delay occurred has been explained sufficiently. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this application be allowed without imposing any condition.

4. Learned counsel for the original appellant/acquiring body submits that there has been no proper explanation given for the huge delay that has occurred in the present case and that it is wrong to say that no notice of final hearing of the appeal was ever received by the claimants/cross-objectors for, it is the practice of this Court to always fix the appeal for final hearing on a future date upon it's admission. He also submits that there is a prescribed form for issuance of notice after admission to the respondents and this form indicates that whenever notice after admission is issued to the respondents, it is always issued for final disposal of the appeal.

5. Under Order 41, Rule 22(1) of the CPC a cross-objection to the decree can be filed by way of an appeal within one month from the date of service of notice upon the cross objector regarding the day fixed for hearing the appeal or within such further time as the appellate Court may think fit to allow. Now, it is settled law that power conferred upon the appellate Court to allow the cross-objection even after the expiry of period of one month is not akin to the power of the Court to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is also settled law that even if the delay is to be condoned by exercising power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in land acquisition cases, the Court is required to take more pragmatic and liberal view given the plight of the land holders, whose lands are taken away for public purposes. A useful reference in this regard may be had to the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Ladku Mhatre, reported in 2011(6) ALL MR 242, Panna Lal v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1516, Dhiraj Singh (dead), through Legal Representatives and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2014)14 SCC 127, Imrat Lal and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, reported in (2014)14 SCC 133 and Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013)14 SCC 81. It is also useful to note in this context that in none of these cases, has it been laid down that even when the delay is condoned or time to file cross-objection is extended in terms of the power of the Court under Order 41, Rule 22(1) of the CPC, the Court would not be within the limits of its power to impose reasonable conditions.

6. The position that now emerges is that while extending the time for filing of the cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22(1) of the CPC same principles governing the discretion of the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply and it is the principle of fitness of the c