The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period and the discretion of the court in condoning the delay. The judgment also emphasized the need to pursue legal remedies simultaneously and highlighted the consequences of adopting dilatory tactics.

1. In this appeal, the judgment and decree dated 11-05-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Appeal No. 126-A/2005 is under challenge whereby the appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 10-05-1996 passed in Civil Suit No.4-A/94 by the Civil Judge Class-I. Janjgir was dismissed not only on merits but also on the ground of limitation.

2. Brief facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.4A/94 for the eviction of the appellants/defendants from the suit accommodation situated in Sadar Bazar, Champa on grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961). Despite service of summons of the suit, the defendants remained absent on 04.05-1995 and were proceeded ex parte on 20-06-1995. The ex parte judgment and decree was passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir on 1005-1996. The appellants/defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') on 22-06-1998 before the trial Court on the ground that although summons were duly served on the defendants for 4.5.1995 they did not appear in Court because their counsel had informed them that the report of service of summons was not received in Court on 4.5.1995 and thereafter no notice was served on them for the date 28.6.1995 on which date the Court proceeded ex parte on the basis of the report of service of summons on the defendants for 4.5.1995. Thereafter, they did not appear in Court and had knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree on 14-05-1998 when the Process Server served the warrant of execution of the judgment and decree on them. The learned Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir rejected the said application on 07-12-2002. The appellants/defendants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16/2002 before the Additional District Judge, Janjgir, which was dismissed on 29-01-2003. The appellants/defendants preferred Civil Revision No. 14312003 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was withdrawn by the counsel for the appellants/defendants on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 115 of the Code. The counsel for the applicants prayed for liberty to file appropriate proceedings available under law. The said liberty was granted by the High Court. However, instead of preferring an appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code, the appellants/defendants, preferred Writ Petition No.1027/2005, which was dismissed on 08-12-2005. In this manner, it was only after moving from pillar to post that the appellants/defendants preferred First Appeal No. 126-A/2005 before the Additional District Judge, Janjgir on 14-12-2005 along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1963') for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that in the said appeal, stay on execution of the ex parte judgment and decree was granted by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir, whereupon the respondents/plaintiffs preferred Writ Petition No. 1646/2006 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 13-04-2006. Against the said order, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred S.L.P. (Civil) before the Apex Court. The S.L.P. (Civil) preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs against the order dated 13-04-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1646/2006 was disposed of on 16-04-2007 with a direction to the first appellate Court to decide the application for condonation of delay as well as the first appeal, which had been filed by the appellants/defendants herein.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Additional District Judge dismissed the civil appeal not only on merits, but also on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not shown. It was also held that Section 14 of the Act,