The discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be exercised judiciously, ensuring substantial justice while adhering to statutory principles.

JUDGMENT :

(Kardak Ete, J.)

Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Riba, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filling this Revision Petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.03.2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Ziro in IA (Z) No.14/2022, in Civil Appeal (Z) No.12/2022, by which, the delay of 184 (one hundred eighty four) days in filing the Civil Appeal has been condoned.

3. The case of the petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the petitioners and respondents have dispute over the plot of land, termed as ‘Tamar Land’, located at Chambang in Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. The dispute was referred to the forum of Mel, which was conducted on 29.01.2022, whereby the land in question has been declared to be the land of Abu Tamo family i.e. the great grandfather of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondents have filed a Civil Appeal which has been registered as Civil Appeal (Z) No.12/2022, before the Court of District Judge, Ziro. Since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation but filed after a delay of 184 (one hundred eighty four) days, an interlocutory application being IA (Z) No.14/2022 was filed praying for condonation of said delay of 184 (one hundred eighty four) days in filing the Civil Appeal by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. The learned District Judge, Ziro, after consideration of the grounds elaborately, returned with a finding that the grounds shown by the applicants (respondents herein), for condoning the delay of 184 (one hundred eighty four) days in filing the Civil Appeal are not convincing. However, for the ends of justice and for providing an opportunity to the respondents to prove their case in an appeal, condoned the delay by imposing a cost of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousands) only, to be paid to the petitioners. Hence this Revision Petition.

5. Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned District Judge, Ziro has erred in facts and law, in condoning the delay of 184 (one hundred eighty four) days in filing the Civil Appeal vide the impugned order in as much as despite finding that the explanation for condoning the delay is not convincing, the delay has been condoned by imposing a cost of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand) only, which is against the settled principle of law and as such is untenable. He has placed reliance of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 and Majji Sannemma Alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 384, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:

“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the f