The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause for delay in seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the emphasis on reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. C M APPL 12296/2019 (delay in filing)

This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of 574 days delay in filing the present appeal.

2. Some necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this application are that respondent no.1 had filed a suit under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery in the sum of Rs.9,25,92,523/-. The defendants including the appellant herein filed an application under Order XXXVII Sub-rule 3 seeking leave to defend, which was dismissed in default by order dated 27.02.2017. By a subsequent order dated 10.07.2017, the suit was decreed against the defendants. It is the case of the appellant that on 03.12.2018, the appellant was served with the summons from the executing court and it is on this date that he became aware that the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The application also discloses that upon receipt of this notice from the executing court, the appellant contacted the counsel engaged in the matter. The appellant was informed that the counsel had left the law-firm and he was no longer associated with the said firm. The appellant thereafter engaged a new counsel who informed the appellant of the order dated 10.07.2017.

3. The applicant/appellant has further averred in the application that subsequently in or around December, 2018 to January, 2019, the appellant lodged a complaint against respondent no.1 and Princess Choice Hotel Pvt. Limited and Upendra Soni and Shalini Soni of the fraud played upon him in collusion and connivance of respondent no.1. Another ground raised for seeking condonation of delay is that the appellant was collecting documents and filing complaint against respondent no.1 and the entire procedure took time in filing the present appeal.

4. Mr. Bhuban, counsel for the applicants/appellants further submits that prior to filing of this appeal, an application was filed under Order XXXVII Sub-rule 4 seeking recall of judgment and decree. This application was filed on 11.02.2019 and the same was dismissed on 14.02.2019. Counsel further contends that he has a strong case on merits. It has also been submitted that it has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding the application, courts must adopt a liberal approach and meritorious matter should not be dismissed purely on the technical ground. Counsel also contends that the appellant would not make to suffer inaction on the part of the counsel. It is submitted that fees were paid and counsel was engaged and the appellant was in bonafide belief that all the steps would be taken by the counsel to benefit and safeguard the appellant.

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant did not diligently pursue this matter, which is evident from the fact that neither the appellant nor the counsel appeared when the application seeking leave to defend was listed. It is submitted that it has become a practice that the parties for their inaction blame the counsel. It is submitted that admittedly the appellant had engaged a law firm and merely because one of the counsels has disassociated himself from the law firm does not mean that the matter could not have been pursued by the firm. It is further submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay is vague, lacks material particulars and is extremely casual in nature. He submits that substantial rights have accrued in his favour, which should not be lightly disturbed by this court, especially when the application lacks bonafide and the delay is on account of sheer carelessness and inaction on the part of the appellant.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, it is a settled law that Courts must adopt a liberal approach while deciding an application seeking condonation of delay. It is also a settled law that while considering an application seeking condonation of delay, the court