The main legal principle established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and the protection of valuable rights.

ORDER :

Order dated 10/02/2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surendrnagar in Civil Misc. Application No.57 of 2022 condoning the delay of 194 days caused in preferring the appeal before the learned first appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Necessary facts for deciding this petition are that petitioner has filed RCS No.51 of 2013 before learned Civil Judge, Muli which was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 20/03/2020 wherein petitioner has prayed for removal of encroachment from the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has also preferred execution being Regular Execution No.1 of 2021 before the learned Court below and during the proceeding of the execution, respondent has filed Civil Misc. Application No.57 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 196 days caused in preferring the appeal which came to be allowed by the learned first appellate Court after hearing both the sides and said delay was condoned on the ground of payment of costs of Rs.500/- with the DLSA, Surendranagar. The said order has been challenged in this petition.

3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Drawing the attention of this Court to page nos.26 and 29 learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent have participated in the Darkhast proceeding. Firstly, they have taken date on 01/03/2021 and then on 07/10/2022; meaning thereby, the respondent had full knowledge about the passing of the judgment and decree against them, yet the respondent had waited upto 11th hours for filing the appeal. He would further submit that normally objection to the delay condonation are not raised; but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case whereby the learned trial Court has not noticed the aspect that respondent has participated in the execution proceeding which indicates that respondent has knowledge about passing of the judgment and decree against him and yet within the time period or within reasonable time period, the appeal is not preferred. He would further submit that learned first appellate court seriously erred in not discussing the said reasons and passed the order contrary to the facts on record of the case. This submission has been canvased to allow this petition.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Harsh Vyas for the respondent on the other hand would submit that objection raised by the petitioner for condoning the delay had been raised by him even before the learned first appellate Court and by referring to Annexure-C of the petition, he would submit that all the objections which are raised herein by the petitioner was also raised before the learned first appellate Court. He would further submit that learned first appellate court after having considered the objections on record was pleased to exercise the discretion and condoned the delay. He would further submit that allowing the respondent to file the first appeal, the first appellate Court is not granting any extraordinary relief; but permitted the respondent to espouse his cause to be decided on the merits. He would further submit that since the first appellate Court has decided to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the respondent and further believed to adopt the liberal approach, the first appellate Court has not committed any error much less any error on facts and in understanding the provisions of law. By making such submissions, he would submit to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, at the outset, let refer to the findings of the learned first appellate court rendered in paragraph 7 to 9 which reads thus:

“7. For condonation of delay, the applicants are required to prove that there is sufficient cause. It is well settled that the words “Sufficient Cause” has to be liberally construed but it cannot be crystall