The main legal point established is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the interpretation of rules of procedure to advance justice.

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) - CM Nos.13788-13789-C of 2009

The matrix of the facts, relevant for disposal of present applications, for condonation of delay is that the applicant-appellant filed the main appeal in this Court on 8.3.2006 presumably within limitation. According to the Registry, as there was a delay of two days in filing the appeal, therefore, the same was returned with the following objections:-

1) How the RSA is within limitation;

2) Substantial law point should be mentioned in GOA;

3) Fair true copy of that should be filed.

2. Having removed the objections, the applicant-appellant re-filed the appeal on 8.12.2009 with Ist application for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal and 2nd application for condonation of delay of 1371 days in re-filing the appeal, invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act and section 151 CPC.

3. Concisely, the case set up by the applicant in his application for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the appeal was that after the decision of first appellate Court, he collected the documents and other record from the counsel in the trial Court and due to financial crises, he could not manage to purchase the Court fees for filing the appeal and thus the delay of two days occurred in filing the appeal.

4. As regards the delay of 1371 days in re-filing the appeal, it was claimed by learned counsel for the applicant that his earlier Clerk Mauj Deen has collected the paper book of the appeal after the objections and put the same in the brief of admitted case of RSA No.4173 of 2002 titled as “Chief Administrator Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board v. Zile Singh” by mistake and kept in the bundle of admitted cases. The earlier Clerk was stated to have left his office in the month of July, 2006. Thereafter, he (Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate) has changed his office and client could not contact him. Now, the execution has been filed by the respondent thereby his client enquired about his appeal, he (Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate) made efforts to search out the same and contacted Mauj Deen Clerk. After making hard efforts, he was able to find out the paper book of the instant appeal. Taking the responsibility of not filing the appeal within due period meant for re-filing, on account of unavoidable circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the delay of 1371 days in re-filing the appeal occurred due to his fault and the applicant may not be allowed to suffer in this respect. The delay caused was not stated to be intentional but due to unavoidable circumstances, narrated here-in-above. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, condonation of delay of 2 days in filing and 1371 days in re-filing the appeal has been sought for, in the manner indicated here-in-above. First application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant, while the second is duly supported by the affidavit of Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate.

5. The respondent contested the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal and filed the reply, inter-alia, pleading that the delay in re-filing the appeal has not been duly explained at all. Succinctly, according to the respondent, since no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay, so, the application be dismissed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in this context.

7. As is evident from the record, the applicant-appellant filed the appeal presumably within a period of limitation, but the same was returned by the Registry on the ground that there was a delay of two days. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate has explained, in his affidavit, the circumstances for causing the delay in re-filing the appeal as depicted here-in-above. Therefore, to me, there appears to be no ground to disbelieve the affidavit of applican