The court held that a satisfactory explanation for delay is essential for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and failure to provide such explanation results in dismissal.

Order :

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 395 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition with a prayer to restore Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 to its original file.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners came to know about the Execution Case No. 10 of 2024 and when they appeared in the Execution Case No. 10 of 2024, they came to know about dismissal of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 and immediately thereafter on 20.08.2024, this instant civil miscellaneous petition was filed. It is next submitted that there is no deliberate laches on the part of the appellants, who are the petitioners herein, rather the delay is bonafide.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is vague and there is no whisper, as to what stopped the petitioners to file this civil miscellaneous petition within the statutory time. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1788, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in that case that when the averments in the affidavit are found to lacks bonafide, then the case falls within the exception to the rule of liberal approach and it does not deserve the liberal approach formula in matters relating to condonation of delay without proper explanation as to why, the said delay occurred. It is then submitted that there is absolutely no ground mentioned, as to why, the appellants who were represented by a lawyer in the said Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 and who was present on 10.05.2023, obviously on the instruction of the appellants, did not remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter, within the peremptory time of six weeks, from 10.05.2023. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable cause for condoning the huge delay of 395 days. It is next submitted that vide order dated 10.01.2025, this civil miscellaneous petition has been abated against the opposite party nos. 3 and 13. So in their absence, no effective adjudication of the dispute can take place but knowingly and with malafide intention, the petitioners have not made any prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of the opposite party nos. 3 & 13. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners’ intent is to get the delay condoned, behind the back of the legal representatives of the opposite party nos. 3 & 13; which is also not permissible in law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer to condone the delay of 395 days as prayed for in this interlocutory application being without any merit be rejected and this interlocutory application being not maintainable in law and being devoid of any merit be dismissed.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that on 10.05.2023, the Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 was listed before this Bench under the Heading “orders (with defects)”. The learned counsel for the appellants of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 prayed for six weeks’ time to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter. The same was allowed by this Court conditionally by directing the appellants to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within six weeks from 10.05.2023, failing which, the said Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. It is crystal clear from the said order dated 10.05.2023, since the appellants were represented through their lawyer Mr. Vikesh Kumar, so the appellants were very much awa