The court ruled that a delay of 1994 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned due to lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.

ORDER :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1.Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 15.07.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Cr. Misc. Case No.24/2019 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application preferred by the appellants under Section 452 Cr.P.C.

2. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 1994 days. The appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order was passed by the court below on 15.07.2019 but the appellants could not approach the local counsel within time as they were busy in earning livelihood of the family and when they approached the counsel, they came to know about the impugned order passed by the trial court. It is argued that subsequently, in the month of January, 2020, corona pandemic spread in all over the world and therefore, the appellants could not file the appeal against the impugned order. Thereafter, the appellant No.3 suffered from life threatening disease of Hepatitis C and he is still under continuous observation of the Doctors. Counsel submits that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and only due to lack of knowledge of the disposal of the application by the trial court. Only on the un-intentional act, any party should not be deceived from justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal, being bonafide, may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits.

4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the present appeal against the order dated 15.07.2019 has been filed after a period of more than five years and therefore, the delay cannot be said to be bonafide at all. No day to day satisfactory explanation with regard to the delay caused in filing the appeal has been given by the appellants, therefore, no case is made out of condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

6. 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.”

7. A court’s principle duties are to resolve disputes between parties and achieve substantial justice. The purpose of limiting rules is not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. In accordance with widely accepted principles, Section 5 grants the courts discretion over jurisdiction. The term ”sufficient cause” 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 discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a ver