ORDER :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Nilay H. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - applicants and Mr. Pinakin B. Raval, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent (writ applicant before the learned Single Judge). No notice is issued to other respondents since this appeal/application is being disposed of at the preliminary stage itself without any adverse order being passed against respondents who are yet to be served and also having regard to the fact that we are examining as to whether notice is to be issued to respondents on the application for condonation of delay.

2. The fifth respondent was the writ applicant before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application 5455 of 2019 and he had sought for a direction to the respondents to remove or stop illegal/additional construction put up by the plot holders in the Society and pending admission of said Special Civil Application, an interim payer was sought for to direct the respondent no. 2 therein namely, the District Development Authority, Mehsana (who is also second respondent herein) to consider the representation dated 03.02.2014 submitted by the writ applicant and others within a stipulated time. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 15.03.2019 has directed the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Mehsana to look into the matter and to do the needful. Appellants herein who claim to be the plot holders in the Society are contending that they are aggrieved by the said direction. Hence, they, have preferred F/Letters Patent Appeal 32913 of 2022 and on account of they not being parties to the Special Civil Application, have filed Civil Application 3263 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to appeal against the said order. Since there is delay of 549 days in filing the appeal, application for condonation of delay has been filed. In the normal course, this Court would have issued notice on the delay application as well as on the main matter and application seeking leave to appeal. Respondent no. 5 herein is the writ applicant and is on caveat. However, we do not propose to issue notice to others namely, respondents 1 to 3 herein, since we are examining as to whether any fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to them. No litigant would stand to benefit in approaching the Court belatedly. While considering an application for condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay, but the cause for delay, which would be of paramount consideration. If the delay has been explained, which would be in the proximity of truth, such delay deserves to be condoned. On the other hand, where the litigant is indolent, negligent, careless and would not approach the Court with clean hands, in such circumstances, even if there a short delay, it does not deserve to be condoned. It all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula prescribed in this regard. However, the fact remains that if delay is explained with sufficient cause, as indicated in Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, such delay deserves to be condoned. At this juncture, we are of the considered view, it would be apt and appropriate to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 which reads :

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 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 meaning-ful manner which subserves 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