The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing an Appeal, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach to enable substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave for the Petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji for the Respondent through video conference.

2. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Articles 14, 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 111/2019 dated 12.7.2019 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the Civil Misc. Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

3. The Petitioner herein has filed Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.1.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No. 105/2015. The delay in preferring the Appeal is 4 months and seven days.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the order passed by the learned Judge is ex facie bad and illegal and is not tenable in the eye of law. That the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the delay has occurred due to the process of getting approval from higher authority for filing appeal before he appellate court. That the Advocate was busy and therefore he could not collect the certified copy immediately. That the petitioner has received the copy of the judgment and decree along with the opinion of the lower court panel Advocate on 30.3.2019 and thereafter the petitioner had initiated the process for getting approval for filing appeal before the appellate court. It is further submitted that the petitioner sent the papers for approval to the divisional office on 8.4.2019 and thereafter the divisional office sent the papers for approval to the corporate office on 15.4.2019 and thereafter the corporate office granted approval for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Court on 2.5.2019 and thereafter the petitioner sent the papers to the lower court panel Advocate on 4.5.2019 for filing Appeal against the judgment of the trial court and thereafter the trial court Advocate filed Appeal before the Appellate Court on 10.5.2019.

4.1 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has therefore submitted that the aforesaid entire process for filing the Appeal before the Appellate Court, some time was spent and delay had occurred in preferring the Appeal. He has therefore prayed to allow the present Petition and condone the delay in preferring the Appeal.

4.2 In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Section 5 of the Limitation Act which says that if the court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an exception to general rule contained in Section 3 and would dilute the rigour of Section 3. Although 'sufficient cause' is not defined in the Limitation Act, but it was ruled by various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court that 'sufficient cause' is as cause which is beyond the control of the party and due to unavoidable circumstances, the party could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time.

4.3 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments before the learned trial court:

(i) Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746.

(ii) P.K.Ramchandran v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 2275.

(iii) Chief Post Manager General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563.

(iv) The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deo Kumar Singh & Ors. - SLP (Civil) No. 13348/2019 decided on 9.5.2019.

5. Per contra, learned Advocate for the Respondent has heavily opposed the petition and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court is inclined to grant the petition in that case heavy cost may be imposed and the Appeal may be ordered to be expedited.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the Petitioner - every case is required to be decided on merits rather than