The court emphasized the term 'sufficient cause' as a necessary condition for the extension of the prescribed period under the Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of providing adequate reasons to justify the delay in filing an appeal.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on CM APPL. 47727/2019, an application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of 528 days delay in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the instant appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dismissing the civil suit on 18.12.2017. The appellant is a large sized department with several divisions involving various stages of approval for filing of the appeal.

3. According to him, the process of obtaining legal opinion of the counsel could only be completed on 03.01.2019 and subsequent thereto, the case was transmitted to the counsel in April, 2019. Since, the brief was very bulky running into more than 3000 pages it took some time to prepare the appeal and the same was filed in the month of August, 2019.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, therefore, prays for condonation of delay while placing reliance on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of `The State of Manipur & Ors. vs. Koting Lamkang', (2019)10 SCC 408 wherein the court condoned 44 days delay on the ground that the reasons were satisfactorily explained.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by way of filing of the reply vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and she submits that the reasons are not supported by any document and there is no merit in the reasons explained by the appellants.

6. She has also places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of `The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bherulal', (2020)10 SCC 654 wherein it was held that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeal, the Government or State authorities coming before the court must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible for causing the delay. She therefore prayed for dismissal of this appeal on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation.

7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

8. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay would show that there has been a delay of 528 days in filing the present appeal against the judgement and decree dated 18.12.2017.

9. To condone the delay of 528 days in filing the appeal, it is essential to consider the sufficient cause, nature of delay and whether under the present circumstance, such delay can be condoned based upon the arguments made by the appellant.

10. Condonation of delay finds its mention in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the same reads as under:

"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."

11. The aforesaid provision emphasis upon the term `sufficient cause' as a necessary condition for the extension of the prescribed period under the Limitation Act. It is, therefore, important for the litigants to point out the sufficient cause that occasioned the delay in filing the appeal.

12. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal reads as under-

`Most respectfully showeth;

1. That vide order dated 18.12.2017 the Hon'ble District Court, while deciding on the suite for recovery filed by the Petitioner herein had decided in favour of the Responde