The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and not denying parties the opportunity to participate in the justice dispensation process.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.P.N. Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Deena Nath, holding brief of Sri Jamwant Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to raise a challenge to the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Case No. Rev/06/2008-2009, Computerized Case No. AL2008183499956, under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950[the Act] as well as order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Case No. Rec/1828/2021, Computerized Case No.AL20211834001828 under Section 333 of the Act.

3. It is pointed out that consequent to the death of the sole revisionist on 26.10.2011, a substitution application dated 23.11.2015 was moved on behalf of the petitioners i.e. legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-revisionist along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application was rejected by means of an order dated 10.08.2021 assigning the reason that the substitution application had been filed with a delay and that steps had not been taken for issuance of notice pursuant to an order passed with regard to the same.

4. It is further pointed out that a recall application against the aforestated order was moved by the petitioners wherein it was submitted that the applicants i.e. legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-revisionist were already represented by their counsel whose vakalatnama was on record and the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 3 were also represented through their counsel whose vakalatnama was also on record. The recall application was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue in terms of an order dated 22.11.2021 reiterating the reasons that the substitution application was filed with delay and that steps were not taken for issuance of notice pursuant to the order passed in regard to the same.

5. On the point of delay in filing the substitution application, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the reasons for the same were fully explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It is pointed out that the affidavit contained a clear assertion that the applicants were not aware with regard to the pendency of the said case as the pairvi of the revision was being done by their father, Sobaran Singh. It was further averred that the applicants became aware of the pendency of the revision for the first time in the year 2015 upon receiving a communication from the counsel, which was addressed in the name of Sobaran Singh, their deceased father, and soon thereafter they sought legal advice and filed the substitution application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.

6. It is accordingly submitted that the delay in filing the restoration application having been sufficiently explained and there being no want of bonafides on the part of the petitioners, the Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach and granted condonation of delay.

7. The manner of exercising discretion in matters relating to condonation of delay is fairly well settled and it has been consistently held that while exercising discretion in such matters, the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963, should be construed in a liberal manner and in the absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as dilatory tactics, the Court should normally condone the delay.

8. The manner of exercising discretion by Courts in matters relating to condonation of delay was subject matter of consideration in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 wherein it was observed as under -:

“9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court.