IMPORTANT POINT
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.

ORDER :

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, in Civil Appeal Decree No. 07/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Bar, District Pali, Civil Original Case No. 61/1997 whereby, the suit filed by respondent plaintiffs for possession and permanent injunction has been decreed.

2. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 1899 days. The appellants had filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment was passed by the court below on 18.03.2019 but the appellants had no knowledge about the said judgment. It is argued that most of the appellants resided out of Rajasthan in Tamil Nadu for many years and due to medical condition also, so they could not remain in touch with his counsel. The appellants had faith and trust in their counsel but were never informed about the judgment. It is further argued that the impugned judgment and decree was passed in 2010, but respondent-plaintiff did not take any action regarding its execution until 10.07.2023. Upon receiving the notices of execution proceedings, the appellants were shocked to learn that their appeal had been dismissed in 2019. Thereafter, they immediately applied for certified copy of the judgment and finally the second appeal was filed before this court on 27.08.2024 without causing further delay. In this regard, he also made a complaint before the Bar Council against the counsel. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits. In support of his submission he has placed reliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apangshu Mohan Lodh and others vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 119 and decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Dodram vs. The Collector Pilibhit & Ors. Reported in 2014 (4) CCC 644 (Allahabad).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and carefully gone through the record.

5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced hereinunder for our reference:

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. —Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation. —The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.”

6. The intention in accepting the concept of limitation is that “controversies are restricted to a fixed period of time, lest they should become immortal while men are mortal.” The notion is that every legal proceeding should be kept alive for a term fixed by the Legislature. The courts are simultaneously bestowed with the power/discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is proved for not availing the remedy within the time fixed under the given law. Although, there is no straight-jacket formula for dealing with the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the term “sufficient cause” used under the abovementioned Section is to be interpreted liberally to promote substantial justice in cases where the appellant cannot be held accountable for any negligence, inaction, or lack of bonafides. In the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy Reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:-

“It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such dis