JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

CM-702-C-2020

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 2471 days in filing the present appeal.

2. It has been averred in the application that the applicant-appellant was under the impression that its appeal filed before the First Appellate Court i.e. Addl. District Judge, Patiala was under adjudication. It has been averred that when inquiry was made from counsel representing the applicant-appellant before the First Appellate Court, it came to the notice of the applicant-appellant that the appeal had been dismissed in November, 2012. Thereafter, the applicant-appellant applied for a copy of the judgment. It has been averred that there was no occasion for the applicant-appellant to not to pursue the case intentionally since financial liability was involved in the suit. It has been averred that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation on account of bonafide reasons. It has also been averred that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither wilful nor intentional.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal is not intentional but was on account of the reasons beyond control of the applicant-appellant. It has been submitted that the applicant-appellant has a good case on merits and, therefore, the delay of 2471 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits.

4. I have duly considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant.

5. The applicant-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,27,543/- alongwith interest @ 1% per month. The said suit was dismissed by the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011. An appeal was preferred against the said decision which also came to be dismissed by the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2012. It is against the said judgment and decree that the present appeal was preferred alongwith the application for condonation of delay.

6. As per Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring an appeal or an application (other than an application under the provisions of Order XXI CPC) within the prescribed period, the same may be admitted after the prescribed period as well. It is by now well settled that the Courts have to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. It is also well settled that normally, parties should be heard on merits and should not be non-suited on technicalities. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 785, the Hon'ble Apex Court culled out the principles with regard to condonation of delay. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-

From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

(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 the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence