JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-11747-C-2023

For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed and the applicant/appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in payment of Court fee.

CM-11748-C-2023 and

RSA-3287-2023

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 19.02.2014 and 30.08.2016 passed by the Courts of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla and Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the suit for possession, permanent injunction and declaration filed by the appellant/plaintiff, was dismissed.

2. The applicant-appellant has filed CM-11748-C-2023 seeking condonation of 2464 days’ in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application that the applicant-appellant was suffering from various ailments and that he had been under the impression that the period of limitation would start running from the day when certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court was delivered to him i.e., 09.08.2023. It is further asserted that the applicant-appellant had no knowledge of the passing of the judgment and decree by the first Appellate Court and that he came to know about it only in June, 2023 and after that, he had contacted his counsel for filing the appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel representing the applicant- appellant, while reiterating the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, argues that the delay in filing the appeal, is neither intentional nor willful and rather, the same is due to the circumstances explained above. It is further argued that it is settled law that matters should not be decided on technicalities and rather, the same should be decided on merits.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, but find the same to be devoid of merit.

5. 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 versus 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 on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to en-capsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

(viii) There is a disti