The court emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and highlighted the need for a liberal but rational approach in such matters.

JUDGMENT

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - By medium of this application, the applicant has sought condonation of five years and six months delay that has crept up in filing of the appeal.

2. It was averred that the applicants / appellants had engaged one Devinder Singh, Advocate, for filing the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court and the same stood filed on 26.05.2011 and it was decided on 23.11.2012 but the Advocate Devinder Singh constantly informed the applicants/appellants that the appeal is still pending adjudication before the learned first Appellate Court. It is only in January, 2017, when appellant No. 1 Pawan Kumar went to the Court, then it transpired that the appeal had already been dismissed way back on 23.11.2012. The appellants applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 05.01.2017 and got the same on the same day. Thereafter, he contacted the Counsel at Shimla for filing the appeal but the Counsel advised him to come in the last week of February, 2017 as the High Court was closed for winter vacation. Accordingly, the appellant came to Shimla in first week of March, 2017 and immediately thereafter has filed the instant appeal.

3. Respondent No. 1 has contested the application by filing reply wherein preliminary objection regarding there being no plausible reason has set out for condoning the delay. On merits, it was averred that since the applicants have failed to explain the delay of each day and has further failed to show the time and day when he contacted his Counsel, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

4. It is more than settled that in matters of the instant kind the Courts normally are required to adopt liberal approach specially while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusal to condone delay can result in an meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. It is clearly settled that the approach in such matter should not be a pedantic but the doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt in a rational commonsense, pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical consideration.

5. However, at the same time, the Court is also required to see whether there are lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay. It has also to take into consideration the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence while approaching the Court. It has further to be ensured that the concept of liberal approach has to be encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play because there is increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in an non-challant manner, which requires to be curbed, of course, within the legal parameters. This legal position is succinctly expounded in the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy , (2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay the principles applicable thereto were summarised as follows:-

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal