Point of Law: The expression "sufficient cause" employed by legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice--that being life-purpose for the existence of institution of Courts.

ORDER :

1. This civil application has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 741 days in filing the captioned First Appeal.

2. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the dealing advocate had conveyed to the appellant regarding pronouncement of judgment and amount of compensation allowed on 30.03.2018. The appellant replied to his dealing advocate regarding filing of appeal against the order of tribunal. The appellant went to the office of dealing advocate on 24.05.2018 to sign the vakalatnama for filing first appeal as the advocate was not available due to summer vacation. The appellant again went to the office of dealing advocate on 18.06.2018. Subsequently dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies will be sent to the High Court advocate and will update regarding the status of appeal. That the appellant went to the office of dealing advocate on 24.04.2019 to know the status of the appeal filed before the High Court. The dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies are already sent to the High Court advocate and will confirm the status of appeal shortly. The appellant again contact the dealing advocate after period of few months to know the status of first appeal on 24.10.2019. The dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies sent to the High Court advocate was misplaced or lost in transaction and is not found in the High Court advocate’s office presently. That the applicant personally applied for certified copies on 16.11.2019 and the certified copies were received from the court on 30.11.2019. The applicant personally sent the certified copies to the High Court advocate on 18.12.2019. The High Court advocate confirmed receipt of certified copies on 20.12.2019. Subsequently the High Court raised requirement of further documentary evidence to draft appeal. That the applicant contacted the dealing advocate on 30.12.2019 for further documentary evidence as required by the High Court advocate. The applicant sent the requisite documents on 06.02.2020. Subsequently the High Court advocate drafted the application for condonation of delay and sent for affidavit on 06.03.2020. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the delay of 741 days has been caused in preferring the captioned appeal.

3. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840. It is submitted that the cause for delay should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to forego the interest and the consequential statutory benefits during the delayed period and thus prayed for liberal consideration of the sufficient cause.

4. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is c