The Court emphasized the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in determining 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, as provided under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Application-CLMA No. 9625/2010 has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking condonation of 2614 days’ delay in filing restoration application bearing MCC No. 970/2010 against which the respondent has filed objection by moving application bearing CLMA No. 2358/2011.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This Second Appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1992. After creation of Uttarakhand High Court, the same was transferred to this Court from the Allahabad High Court under Section-35 (2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000.

4. From perusal of the record it reveals that on 10.06.2003 notice was issued to the appellants/ applicants. The office endorsement dated 13.06.2003 further reveals that in compliance of Court’s order, notices were issued to the applicants returnable before 14.07.2003. Thereafter, on 14.08.2003, the appeal was listed before the Court and on that date, since none appeared for the parties, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. In support of delay condonation application, affidavit of Mr. Gyan has been filed on behalf of the applicants. It has been stated in the affidavit, on oath, that instant Second Appeal was filed by the applicants through Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, Advocate at Allahabad, who had assured the applicants that the appeal would be argued and prior intimation would be sent to them, as soon as the appeal would be listed for final hearing. The applicants were under the impression that the matter is still pending before the Court and when the matter would be listed they would be informed. The affidavit further asserts that on 07.10.2010, when the applicants received a Court’s summon issued by 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee in Execution Case no. 20 of 1992 ‘Beg Ram vs. Buddu and others’, they took copy of said summon to a local counsel, who informed that the Second Appeal no. 1141 of 1992 was transferred from Allahabad High Court to Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 14.08.2003. It has further been averred in the affidavit that no information/notice of transfer was sent to the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants contacted Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, during the vacations, who told that the High Court would reopen on 08.11.2010 and advised to move application for getting the Second Appeal restored. Thereafter, on 08.11.2010, the applicants came to Nainital and applied for certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2003. The applicants received certified copy of the order on 15.11.2010 and got prepared the restoration application but due to sudden demise of Hon’ble Justice Dharam Veer on 16.11.2010 and due to holiday of Id-Ul-Zuha on 17.11.2010, the restoration application was filed on 18.11.2010. It has been further averred in the affidavit that the applicants had no knowledge of the dismissal of Second Appeal, prior to receiving the notices of the said execution case and prior to enquiry made by the local counsel. The omission on the part of the applicants is neither deliberate nor willful and in case, restoration application is not allowed, after condoning the delay, the applicants shall suffer adversely.

6. On the other hand, the respondent has filed objection to the delay condonation application, with the assertion that the applicants have not explained each and every day’s delay in filing the delay condonation application and no explanation has been brought on record as to what was happening past 2614 days. It is further averred in the objection that after creation of State of Uttarakhand, this High Court issued notices to the applicants on 10.06.2003. However, since the property in dispute was in the possession of the applicants, they deliberately and willfully not enquired upon the matter. It is further stated in the objection that the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the delay