IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated for condonation of delay, and negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify the delay. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the laws of limitation and exercising discretion judiciously in condoning delay.

JUDGMENT :

The present civil miscellaneous appeal is listed in Defects category.

2. As per office report, the appeal is time barred by 822 days and the appellant has preferred an application (IA No.1/22) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. It is further submitted that due to COVID-19, the appellants could not send documents to the counsel. Further, the brother of appellant no. 2 died and due to demise of the appellant’s brother, the appellants could not prefer the present appeal within time. It is thus prayed that the present application may be allowed and the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

5. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara passed the impugned order on 17.07.2019 in presence of learned counsel for the appellants-respondents. The appellants applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment 05.07.2021 i.e. approximately after 2 years of passing of the impugned judgment and it was delivered to appellants on 08.07.2021. The present appeal was thereafter filed on 14.01.2022. However, no cogent reasons have been put forth by the appellant as to why he could not get certified copy of the judgment for such a long period and file the instant appeal within the period of limitation. The argument of the learned counsel that the appellants were prevented by COVID-19 from filing the appeal within limitation, cannot be termed as ‘sufficient cause’ so as to condone the delay of 822 days. The effect of COVID-19 started in March 2020 and the impugned judgment was passed on 17.07.2019. Further, the certified copy was received by the appellants on 08.07.2021 and the present appeal was filed on 14.01.2022 i.e after more than six months. Such conduct of the appellants shows that the appellants have not been diligent in pursuing their case.

6. In Basawraj v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“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 facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260 has discussed as under:

“17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra), it is observed and held as under:—

In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal