IMPORTANT POINT
The Court applied a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the delay not so inordinate and finding plausible reasons to make out a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

ORDER :

1. In the present revision petition, which pertains to the year 2008 and falls under the category of “Oldest hearing cases for early disposal”, none appeared for the respondent on 28.03.2022, 22.08.2023 and 28.08.2023 whenever the matter was listed before the Court. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was directed to be listed on 29.08.2023, on which date, learned counsel Mr. Hemant Shrimali put in appearance on behalf of respondent and submitted that he would be filing power (P/A) during the course of the day. He then, prayed for time to argue out the petition and on his request, the matter was directed to be listed on 14.09.2023.

2. As the matter could not be taken up on 14.09.2023, it was listed on 18.10.2023, on which date, learned counsel Mr. Hemant Shrimali submitted that he has filed power (P/A) on behalf of respondent but prayed for adjournment. On his request, the matter was directed to be listed on 22.11.2023. The matter was then listed on 03.01.2024, on which date a request for adjournment was made on behalf of learned counsel Mr. Hemant Shrimali on the ground of bereavement in his family. On the said request been made, the matter was directed to be listed today i.e. on 10.01.2024. Today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. In view of the fact that sufficient time has been granted to the respondent and none has appeared despite the said opportunities been granted, the Court proceeded on to hear learned counsel for the petitioner finally on the revision petition.

4. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Abu Road in Civil Appeal (decree) No.30/2007 whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as preferred by the petitioner/appellant was rejected and as a consequence, the regular first appeal also stood dismissed.

5. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-Municipal Board which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2007. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was preferred by the Municipal Board which was filed with a delay of approximately 35 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred for condonation of the said delay. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that no plausible reason/dates as to when the officer-in-charge was on leave; when the sanction to prefer the appeal was granted; when the application for the said purpose was moved etc. had been furnished. It has further been observed by the Court that it was not mentioned in the application as to from whom the sanction was to be obtained when the Commissioner himself was competent to grant the sanction. The Court further observed that when stipulated limitation for filing the appeal expired in the month of June, that is, during the summer vacations, the appeal ought to have been filed on the re-opening day i.e. on 02.07.2007. However, the same was filed on 18.07.2007 and no reason for the delay for the period of said 16 days i.e. from 02.07.2007 to 17.07.2007 has also been given. Learned Court below further observed that the reason for day to day delay ought to have been given by the appellant-Department and the same having not been given, the delay is not liable to be condoned.

6. Heard the counsel and perused the material available on record.

7. The case of the appellants before the first appellate Court was that the plaintiff Hotel encroached on 20x30 sq.ft. area of land of the Municipality in the garb of a permission for renovation and hence, the decree for injunction granted in its favour deserves to be set aside.

8. As per the application filed by the appellant, the judgment & decree in question was passed on 08.05.2007 and copy of the same was received by the counsel on 15.05.2007. Meaning thereby, the limitation to prefer an appeal against the same was available till 15.