IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, parties must seek remedy promptly and provide a bona fide explanation for any delay in approaching the court.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

(Order on C.M. Application No.70037 of 2016: Application for condonation of delay)

1. List has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call of the list.

2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Advocate alongwith Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State Opposite Party No.1 and perused the record.

3. This leave to appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 Years 04 Months and 8 Days, as per the report of the stamp reporter, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Kheri in Criminal Case No.1935 of 2012, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri against the acquittal of the accused person/opposite party nos. 2 & 3.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant in the application for condonation of delay supported with the affidavit has taken the ground that the impugned order was passed on 10.06.2023 by the court concerned and the appeal was not filed in time as the clerk of the advocate was ill.

5. Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State Opposite Party No.1 as well as Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 jointly submit that this leave to appeal is time barred by 2 Years 04 Months and 8 Days and the reasons shown in the affidavit supported with application for condonation of delay do not appear to be justified.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as after perusal of record, this Court finds that the explanation given in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is neither acceptable nor trustworthy.

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 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.

8. 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.”

9. 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