Courts must take a liberal approach to condone delays in appeals when justice requires it, focusing on adequate notice and procedural adherence.

JUDGMENT :

1. On 05/10/2023 during discussion, learned counsel for the respondent referring to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karuna Kansal Vs. Hemant Kansal (Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-4848 of 2019 and Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7529-7530 of 2015) submitted that before this Court deals with the appeal with I.A. No.1025/2023 filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT , this Court may consider possibility of mediation between the parties as reiterated in the said judgment by the Apex Court.

This Court called upon counsel for the appellant and the appellant to make an offer. It is stated that about Rs.20,00,000/- were spent on marriage solemnized on 06/03/2018 and so far about Rs.5,00,000/- are due towards arrears of maintenance as ordered by the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 13/02/2023 in MJC No. No.403/2020.

On this, counsel for the respondent and the respondent prayed for deferment of the hearing so that some offer could be discussed. However, after some time, counsel for the respondent stated that the above offer was not acceptable to the respondent. This Court called upon the respondent to make his offer. However, he declined to do so and prayed for consideration of appeal along with I.A. No.1025/2023 as referred to above.

In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, we deferred the hearing on 05/10/2023 and posted the matter today for consideration on I.A. No.1025/2023. Today also, the respondent/husband again declined for making any offer to reach an amicable settlement.

IA No.5830/2023, dated 09.10.2023 an application moved on behalf of the appellant for taking documents on record and IA No.5774/2023, dated 05.10.2023 an application moved on behalf of the respondent for taking documents on record are taken up, considered and allowed for reasons mentioned therein. Documents are taken on record.

2. Heard on I.A. No.1025/2023, an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT .

Before adverting to the contentions advanced by either parties, it is expedient to reiterate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of consideration of application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT As regards meaning, scope and rationale of the law of limitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 has held as under:-

“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian LIMITATION ACT of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine mus