The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient cause for delay in seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for material particulars and distinguishing between delay and inordinate delay.

G.S. Sistani, J.

Cm.Appl 51459/2018(delay) and RFA(OS) 86/2018 & CMs.APPL 51458/2018 & 4699/2019

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 4569 days delay in filing the present appeal. Since the application seeking grounds of delay is short, we reproduce the same as below:

"1. That the Appellant is an overseas citizen of India holding an OCI Card No.A1218555 and permanently settled in Australia.

2. The Appellant was a student almost till her marriage at the tender age of 21, in 1994, and that she went away to Australia, and has been settled there for almost 25 years, has visited India only by way of fleeting short visits, just about 2/3 times in the entire period from 1994 till date. She is also involved with the ISKON movement, and therefore, even out of the very short visits of few days, most of the days get devoted to visiting Mathura/Vridavan or other Shri Krishna Holy Places.

3. That, the Appellant has never been served with the summons of the suit and otherwise also had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit or the orders passed therein till, she received the compilation of papers from her brother Gagan, during her visit to India between 14.09.2018 to 25.10.2018, and in fact till she obtained legal advice on the matter.

4. That, the Appellant came to know about the above said Suit No.687 or(sic of) 1993 and the Orders passed therein, on or about 23.11.2018, when she received legal advice from her counsel regarding further legal steps to be taken in relation to the impugned Will dated 23.02.1990, which had been handed over to her by her brother Sh Gagan Khanna along with other papers during her visit to India between 14.09.2018 to 25.10.2018.

5. That it is in the interest of justice that the Appellant be granted the condonation of delay for the period since final decree dated 27.04.2006(12 years), upto the date of the filing of the present appeal.

PRAYER

It is prayed that it is in the interest of justice that the Appellant be granted the condonation of delay for the period since final decree dated 27.04.2006(12 years), up to the date of the filing of the present Appeal."

2. Reading of the application would show that the appellant claims that she was not served with a copy of the summons in the suit and she had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit. It is also averred that she learnt about the same when she received a compilation of papers from her brother Shri Gagan during her visit between 14.09.2018 to 25.10.2018 and thereafter she sought legal advice.

3. Mr. Mukerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has laboured hard to contend that since the appellant has been permanently residing in Australia for more than 25 years and she has visited India only two or three times, she was not aware of the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 163 to contend that it is not length of delay which matters but the explanation for the delay. He further submits that on account of technicalities, a meritorious matter should not be thrown out. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 614, wherein delay of 29 years was condoned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Although, there is no quarrel to the proposition of law which has been urged by Mr. Mukerjee. While deciding an application seeking condonation of delay of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court must record its satisfaction that the delay was on account of sufficient cause.

5. In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) AIR SC 1612, the Apex Court has held as under:

"11. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordin