The court reaffirmed that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is essential to ensure substantial justice, allowing a non-pedantic approach to procedural matters.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral

The present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 15.05.2023, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot vide which the application, filed by the respondent for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant. The same was decreed on 27.10.2022. An appeal was preferred by the respondent-defendant against the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.2022. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal (Annexure A-1). The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure A-2). Vide impugned order dated 15.05.2023, the application was allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was condoned leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel first read the application (Annexure P-1) and submitted that the averments made therein do not disclose any sufficient cause for delay of 12 days which occurred in filing the appeal. It has been contended that false allegations were levelled by the respondent-defendant against the petitioner-plaintiff which have caused undue harassment to the petitioner-plaintiff. It has been contended that a detailed reply (Annexure A/P-2) was filed to the application (Annexure A/P-1) in which it was denied that any talks of a compromise were going on. However, the First Appellate Court did not consider anything and passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. Learned counsel minced no words in vehemently contending that the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot is illegal and that the same deserves to be set aside.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

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 presu