JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CM-8000-C-2022

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 204 days in re-filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 204 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-7999-C-2022 in/and RSA-2311-2022

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 2462 days in filing the appeal.

2. It has been averred in the application that earlier an appeal (RSA-4421-2014) was filed by the applicant-appellant-society. However, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law vide order dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure A-1). It has been averred that after withdrawal of the said appeal, the appellant-society was looking for a new counsel to draft and file the fresh appeal and an Advocate was agreed to be engaged by the President of the respondent-society for filing the appeal, but the appeal was not filed. It has been further averred that the earlier President of the respondent-Society sent a number of communications and emails during 29.11.2017 to 27.08.2019 to the said Advocate requesting him to file the appeal. It has been alleged in the application that despite the said Advocate having received the payment, did not file the appeal. It has been further averred that in March 2020, lock down was imposed and on account of that, the appeal could not be filed between March 2020 to 15.06.2020. It has been averred that under the circumstances, the delay of 2462 days in filing the appeal occurred.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously urged that matters should be decided on merits and parties should not be non-suited on technicalities. Under the circumstances, learned counsel prays that the application for condonation of delay of 2462 days in filing the appeal be allowed.

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

6. The respondent-plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No.536 on 02.09.1987 against the appellant-defendant. The said suit was withdrawn on 02.02.1996, in which the appellant-defendant along with others filed a counter claim seeking declaration that the respondent-plaintiff (running through Om Parkash and others) was a fictitious body and having no existence and the appellant-defendant (Sanatam Dharam High School) was owner in possession of the suit property (fully described in the plaint). The appellant had also filed a Civil Suit No.750-1944. The dispute pertains to the management control of Shree Sanatam Dharam High School.

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The counter claim filed by the appellant-defendant along with Civil Suit No.750-1994 were dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009. Both parties filed their respective appeals against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009 and both appeals were dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013, leading to filing of the present regular second appeal by the counter-claimant-defendant.

9. The present application was filed after a period of more than 6 ^1/2 years of the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate Court, the exact delay being 2462 days.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be essential to examine the law on the issue.

11. 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 sett