The court should adopt a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. K. Awasthi standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE landlord respondent No. 1 filed application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for fixation of standard rent of the accommodation in dispute and prayed that the standard rent fixed earlier at Rs. 356 per month be enhanced in accordance with law. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his judgment dated 8. 8. 1990 fixed the standard rent to be Rs. 1,070 per month. The petitioner filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit as the appeal was beyond time by twelve days. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected and appeal has been dismissed as time barred by the District judge by his Judgment dated 13. 3. 1991. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the appellate court by the present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE appellate court dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that the Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil)did not inform the department of the date when the judgment was passed and each days delay had not been properly explained. The appellate court also took the view that the law of limitation is same for Government and private litigants and the department has not properly explained the delay in filing the appeal.

( 4 ) NO doubt the law of limitation is uniform but the Courts considering the question of delay condonation should always bear in mind that the refusal to condone the delay would result in shutting a party from putting forward his case. The primary function of a Court is to. adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim : Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation ). Rules of Limitation are not meant to harm the right of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

( 5 ) QUESTION of condensation of delay on application of Government was considered by the supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, AIR 1996 SC 1623, wherein it was laid down as under : "it is axiomatic that the decisions are taken by officers/ agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay--intentional or otherwise--is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not Impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are tost for such default no person is individually affected but what in ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. "

( 6 ) THE Apex Court in Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition Kerala v. K. V. Ayisumma, AIR 1996 sc 2750, rules that adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay In the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pendandic.

( 7 ) EXPLANATION of the petitioner that the Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil) did not inform the department of the date when the judgment was passed and, therefore, the petitioner could not know about the Judgment, which had resulted in delay in filing the appeal was liable to be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application was