The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a bona fide explanation for delay in filing applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court emphasized the principles of substantial justice, reasonable diligence, and lack of mala fide reasons for delay.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Varma, J.

In re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. Nil of 2022

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1963") seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, which is reported to have been filed with a delay of 1900 days i.e. about six years.

2. The review-applicants are co-share holders and they have preferred the instant review application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgment under review was passed on 06.10.2016 in First Appeal Defective No. 817 of 2000 (Malhan v. State of U.P. and another). It is stated that they were not in a position to file the review as they were not aware of the legal provisions. The appeal came to be partly allowed way back in the year 2016 and the appellants-applicants were awarded compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard. Just because in Village Kakrala, the Apex Court had determined compensation of Rs.449/- per square yard, the applicants preferred this review application. The applicants have also stated that they could not file the review application within time due to the blockage of public transportation on account of COVID-19 guidelines.

3. The appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court in the year 2016. The pandemic struck India only in 2020-2021. It cannot be said as stated in Paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that due to the guidelines of the Central Government and the State Government the public transportation was blocked, therefore, the applicants could not come to Allahabad to file the review. The decision in Narendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, cannot be of any avail to the appellants. The delay in filing the review application is absolutely deliberate. There is no reason why the appellants, who are sixteen in number, waited for six long years.

4. We have heard Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the review applicants, and requested him to explain the delay in filing the review application, to which he gave a strange reply that he advised his clients that they may take a chance by filing this review application after a period of six years. We are pained to note that an advocate should not give such an advise when there is no error apparent on the face of record nor was there any other reason that why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.

5. In the present case, not only the appeal was heard and decided on merits but the legal heirs of the deceased appellants were also gracefully permitted by the Court to be substituted. The facts of the case will not permit us to condone the delay in filing the review application for the reasons which are given in the undermentioned paragraph.

6. Recently, the Apex Court has held that after transfer or retirement of a Judge, it is not good to file a review application without any rhyme or reason. In the instant case, the delay in filing the substitution application was condoned on 06.10.2016, and by the same order the appeal was also decided as the identical issue arising out of same reference order was involved in First Appeal No. 31 of 2011, which came to be decided with the same directions way back in the year 2014. We do not find any reason to condone the delay of six years, which is not explained as to why this review application is filed after such an inordinate delay. It is not even pointed out that other litigants had moved the Supreme Court or there is any other order, which can be followed by us, or which may be a subsequent order of the Apex Court that may guide us.

7. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate