The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in approaching the court should not be deliberate, negligent, or lack bona fide, and the principles of condonation of delay should be applied with a pragmatic and cautious approach.

JUDGMENT :

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which was filed in the year 2004.

2. There is huge delay of 2 years and 93 days. The matter has remained pending before this Court for 19 years without steps being taken. Today also, none is present for the appellants.

3. Reasons for the delay as explained in the affidavit attached to this application reads as under :

"2. That the impugned judgment was passed on 8.11.2001 and decree was passed on 24.11.2001, but the Certified Copy of the Order was applied on 17.3.2004 and received on the same date, and Certified Copy of the Decree was also applied on 17.3.2004 and received on the same day.

3. That the appellants were not a party in the case. Pooran Singh Bundela was a party and proceedings was in the in the knowledge of the appellants.

4. That when the Collection Officials were directed to recover the amount from the appellants, then the appellants came to know about the proceedings.

5. That after obtaining the Certified Copy of the Judgment and Decree, the appellants fell ill and they could not direct the deponent to contact the counsel for filing of the aforesaid case before this Hon'ble Court. The date of knowledge of the proceedings of the appellants is 17.3.2004, when they obtained the copy of the judgment and decree of the Courts below"

3. The above reasons will have to be looked into the with the principle enunciated by the Courts from time to time for condonation of delay. 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 inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

4. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said:

"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."

5. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing 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). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to cond