Litigants must actively track their cases; reliance on counsel cannot excuse substantial delays in filing appeals. Courts exercise discretion in condoning delays based on the sufficiency of cause provided.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 30/11/2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in MJC No.27/2010 by which application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay in filing the civil appeal has been rejected and as a consequence thereof, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for declaration of sale-deed and the orders passed by Revenue Court as null and void as well as also for mesne profit and permanent injunction. The appellant appeared in the said appeal, filed his written statement and also participated in the suit proceedings. Ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 23/07/2001 the trial Court decreed the suit.

3. Thereafter, the appellant filed a regular civil appeal under Section 96 of CPC on 03/02/2010 i.e. after 8 years and 7 months of the judgment and decree which was passed against him. He also filed an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT pleading interalia that after his evidence was over, he was informed by his counsel that now, his presence is not required, and he will be informed as and when required. However, it was alleged that his counsel did not give any information about the judgment and decree dated 23/07/2001. Later on, when the plaintiff tried to obtain an information from his counsel, then he was informed that he has won, and he may cultivate the land without any difficulty. Only after the execution proceedings were initiated by plaintiff, defendant came to know about the decree passed against him, therefore, he preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC on 03/02/2010 alongwith an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT . Appellate Court by impugned order dated 30/11/2010 rejected the application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT and also dismissed the appeal as barred by time.

4. Challenging the order passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that the prayer for condonation of delay should be considered liberally, and every attempt should be made to decide the case on merits, and thus it is submitted that Appellate Court should have condoned the delay and proposed the following substantial question of law:-

"1. Whether the Court below has committed error of law in rejecting the application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT preferred by the appellant whereas it was the case of the appellant the decision of the suit was came in to his knowledge only on 08.01.2010.

2. Whether the court below has committed jurisdictional error in not exercising the powers vested in it by not condoning the delay in filing appeal.

3. Whether the Court below has committed jurisdictional error in not interfering in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court ?

4. Whether the findings recorded in the Court below are totally perverse and no findings in the eye of law.

5. That any other question of law deemed fit in the circumstances of the case may kindly be framed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the appellant pointed out some sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 8 years and 7 months in filing the regular civil appeal or not?

7. As already pointed out, it was claimed by appellant that he was informed by his counsel, that he should not appear, and he will inform as and when he was required. Thus, appellant tried to put entire blame on the shoulders of his counsel, and it was his case that his counsel did not inform him about the outcome of civil suit.

8. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether the litigant can blindly rely upon the instructions of his coun