The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exercise of discretion to advance substantial justice.

JUDGEMENT :

1. The above Interim Application is filed to condone the delay and to set aside the order dated 6th January 2017, under which the above Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The above Application is lodged on 13th September 2021. There is a delay of approximately 4 years and 7 months [approximately 1,674 days]. The reason I have mentioned this over here, is because in the Interim Application, the period of delay is not mentioned anywhere.

2. It appears that when the above Suit was called out on 6th January 2017, none appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, this Court by its order dated 6th January 2017 dismissed the Suit for want of prosecution. To set aside this order, the present Interim Application is lodged on 13th September 2021.

3. The explanation for non-appearance on 6th January 2017 as well as for the delay in filing the present Application, is set out in paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 thereof. In the Interim Application it is stated that in the year 2010, amendments to the Plaint were allowed and thereafter the matter was adjourned for framing issues. However, after January 2011, the Suit was not appearing on board for framing issues for a long period of time and it is for this reason that the advocate for the Plaintiff did not keep track of the matter. In these circumstances, when the matter came up on 6th January 2017, the advocate for the Applicant was absent and the Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is thereafter stated that after the amendments were allowed [in 2010], the Applicant was in regular touch with his advocate but since the matter was not appearing on board for a long period of time, the Applicant was under a bona fide impression that as and when the matter is listed, issues would be framed, and his advocate would inform him accordingly. It is thereafter stated that the Applicant was unaware of the Suit being listed on 6th January 2017 and came to know about the dismissal order only on 31st August 2021, i.e. when he visited the office of his advocate and enquired about the Suit. It is also stated that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicant could not communicate with his advocate and was under a bona fide impression that the Court is not working and therefore there was no occasion for the Applicant to communicate with his advocate and enquire about the status of the above Suit.

4. Relying upon this explanation, Mr. Sawant, the learned advocate appearing on behalf the Applicant, submitted that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of approximately 1674 days. He submitted that though the delay is substantial, the same can be condoned in the interest of justice, so that the Applicant is not non-suited and is given an opportunity to prosecute the above Suit on merits. He submitted that if the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the Defendants whereas irreparable, harm, loss and injury would be caused to the Applicant, if he is not permitted to prosecute the above Suit on merits. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sawant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh v/s. Raghunath Kisan Saindane, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 914].

5. On other hand, Mr. Amrut Joshi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos.7 to 9, as well as Mr. Dhawal Patil appearing on behalf of Defendant No.1(d), vehemently opposed the Application for condonation of delay. Both counsels submitted that there is absolutely no explanation for the enormous delay of 1674 days and the only explanation that is sought to be given is that the advocate of the Applicant was not diligent and did not appear when the matter was listed on 6th January 2017. This apart, both learned counsels submitted that from 6th January 2017 to 31st August 2021, there is not a whisper in the Application as to what was done by the Applicant to find out the status of his Suit. In these circumstances, it was submitted that no cause