The judgment emphasizes the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of demonstrating 'sufficient cause' with a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the delay.

By filing this petition under Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appellant-applicants(hereinafter mentioned as applicants) prayed for condoning the delay of 466 days in preferring the connected Second Appeal(RSA) No.36 of 2015, whereunder the appellate judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No.22 of 2012 has been challenged.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the applicants and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondent-opposite parties(hereinafter mentioned as opposite parties).

3. It is very candidly submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that there were some lapses on the part of the applicants in presenting the appeal in time but it was bona fide and not deliberate and intentional. The delay has been caused in the process of collecting the necessary documents on the basis of which the applicants contested the suit. He has also submitted that the case of the applicants has got merit and there is every possibility of succeeding the appeal if it is disposed of on merit and taking into consideration the merit of the appeal delay may be condoned, if necessary, imposing reasonable costs on the applicants as otherwise the ends of justice shall suffer.

4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that no reason at all assigned by the applicants for the delay in filing the appeal. According to learned counsel, Mr. Biswas, the words, ‘sufficient cause’ as contained in the provision should be construed keeping in mind the doctrine of equality. Once the first appeal was decided against the applicants and in favour of the opposite parties the applicants were supposed to be diligent to take step for preferring the appeal. Liberal approach does not mean that whatever cause is assigned it has to be accepted and the delay to be condoned. It is submitted that the application for condoning the delay has been filed as a matter of routine without assigning any sort of reasons, far from satisfactory reason, and so, if the delay is condoned, it will cause miscarriage of justice. The opposite parties are not at all agreeable to favour the applicants in the matter of condonation of delay, even accepting any amount of cost.

5. The word ‘limitation’ in its legal and popular sense, refers to the time within which an action may be brought, or some act done, to preserve a right. In its ordinary sense, it means restriction or circumspection. Time is the essence of life. By lapse of time, one acquires a right and at the same time, a right extinguishes due to lapse of time. One is expected to do a particular act or thing in time either fixed by law or by nature. Where the law has prescribed a time limit to take certain action within a certain specified period of time, it has to be taken, by a party desirous to take action, within such specified period, failing which the party will lose his right to take action subject to any exception prescribed by the statute. The utility of a statute of limitation has never been a matter of doubt or dispute. It has been said that the statute of limitation is a statute of repose, peace and justice. It is one of repose because it extinguishes stale demands, and quiets title. In the words of John Voet, controversies are restricted to a fixed period of time least they should become immortal while men are mortal. It secures peace as it ensures security of rights; and it secures justice, as by lapse of time evidence in support of rights may be destroyed. There can thus be no doubt that it rests on sound public policy. The operation of the law of prescription has been explained by Lord Plunket in a striking metaphor. He stated that Time holds in one hand a scythe and in the other, an hour glass. The scythe mows down the evidence of our rights, while the h