The main legal point established is the importance of showing 'sufficient cause' while seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the necessity to consider the merits of the matter in such cases.

V.K. Shali, J.

This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.07.2011 passed by Mr. S.S. Malhotra, Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by virtue of which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of six months delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Sudhinder, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

3. Before dealing with the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent here to give brief background of the case.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession of a land bearing Khasra No. 367 min., measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Kondli, illaqa Shahdara, Tehsil Preet Vihar, Delhi. It was alleged by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant DDA has no right, title or interest in respect of the aforesaid land as it has not been acquired for the planned development of Delhi. It was alleged that no show cause notice to the respondent/plaintiff was issued by the appellant/defendant and its officials and they were trying to illegally take the possession of the land in question. It was alleged that on 09.07.1999 at about 11:00 a.m. some officials of the appellant/defendant had visited the site to dispossess the respondent/plaintiff, which gave rise to the cause of action to file a suit for injunction and accordingly the injunction was prayed for. Along with the main suit an application seeking ad interim relief was also prayed for.

5. The appellant/defendant filed its written statement and contested the matter. The stand of the appellant/defendant was that the suit land has been acquired by the DDA through different awards passed under Land Acquisition Act and Respondent/plaintiff were not in possession. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the suit so as to add the relief of declaration and possession also in respect of the suit land. The said prayer for amendment was allowed and the suit was converted from a simpliciter injunction suit to a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following seven issues were framed:-

“(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under section 53B of DD Act? - OPD.

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? - OPD.

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit land? - OPD.

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? - OPP.

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration as prayed for? - OPP.

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? - OPP.

(vii) Relief.”

7. The respondent/plaintiff in support of his case examined five witnesses. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant examined one witness.

8. The learned trial Court after analysis of the evidence partly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff declaring the respondent/plaintiff to be the lawful owner of suit land. However, no order with regard to injunction or possession was passed or declaration was issued.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010. Along with the appeal an application seeking condonation of delay of six months was also filed. It was stated in the application that the appellant/defendant being a Government organization, the matter had to be examined in various departments and before filing an appeal, opinion from the Chief Legal Adviser (CLA) was obtained and approval is sought for the purpose of filing an appeal. It was stated that there was no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of