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 to advance substantial justice, and the importance of not disowning the actions of the advocate in seeking relief.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11th April, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 2752/1993, rejecting the objections filed by the appellant/respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in the suit, and making the award dated 5th October, 1993 published by the learned arbitrator, rule of the court.

( 2 ) ALONG with the present appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short `the Limitation act') for condoning a delay of 1203 days in preferring the present appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that he was not made aware of the impugned judgment by his counsel and that the said judgment came to his knowledge only around 15th July, 2005 when he received a copy of the execution application calling upon him to appear in court on 5th August, 2005. The appellant states that he was under the impression that his objections were still pending as he was informed by his counsel that as and when the same would come up for hearing, the appellant would be so intimated. The appellant has also stated that he is a poor and illiterate person and has passed only 4th standard and was unable to understand the implications of the judgment dated 11th April, 2002. It has been submitted that the appellant contacted his previous counsel to collect the case file only in the last week of July, 2005 and thereafter, he engaged the present counsel to file this appeal and hence, he should not be made to suffer for no fault of his and the appeal should be considered on merits after condoning the delay in filing the same.

( 3 ) THE respondent/mcd (hereinafter referred to as `the MCD') has opposed the aforesaid application filed by the appellant and stated in its reply to the application for condonation of delay that there is no ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the grounds taken by the appellant in his application are frivolous and deserve to be dismissed. It was submitted that the claim of the appellant that he is poor and illiterate and could not understand the implications of the award is baseless for the reason that the appellant has entered into the contract with the MCD worth lakhs of rupees and is well aware of his legal rights and obligations under the contract. It was submitted that he cannot be permitted to plead ignorance and lay the entire blame at the door of his counsel for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the present appeal. It was also submitted that the conduct of the appellant could be deduced from the fact that all the cheques issued by him in favour of the MCD were dishonoured on presentation and that the same must also be a factor that should weigh with the court while exercising its power to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Kastiji and others reported as AIR 1987 SC 1353 and balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamoorthy reported as 1998 (7) SCC 123 wherein it has been held that the court should adopt a liberal approach while disposing of applications for condonation of delay and that the word ?sufficient cause? under section 5 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice.

( 5 ) WE have perused the aforementioned judgments. There is no doubt that it is settled law that as against a technical and pedantic approach of throwing out a party on grounds of delay and laches, ends of justice are better met by rendering a decision on merits.

( 6 ) AT the same time, we would also like to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta Vs. T. M. and M. C. Private Ltd. reported as JT 1993 (4) SC 528, wherein, while distinguishing the decision in rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another reported as AIR