IMPORTANT POINT
Considering aspect of delay, justification is required to be considered and not length of delay.

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Rule. Learned advocate, Shri Atit Thakorewaives service of notice of rule for respondent nos.1.1- 1.4, 2.1-2.3 and 3-3.5.3.

2. The present Civil Application is filed by the applicants original appellants for condonation of delay of 1457 days in filing the Application for bringing the heirs on record on the grounds stated in the application.

3. Heard learned advocate, Shri Mrugen Purohit for the applicant and learned advocate, Shri Atit Thakore for respondent nos.1.1-1.4, 2.1-2.3 and 3- 3.5. Though served, no one has remained present for the heirs of the respondent nos.3.5 i.e. the respondent nos.3.1.1 to 3.5.3.,

4. Learned advocate, Shri Purohit submitted that the applicant came to know about the death of respondent nos.3.5, Mohanbhai Patel only when the notice issued by this Court is sought to be served. Learned advocate, Shri Mrugen Purohit submitted that as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the litigant may no t remain in touch with the advocate and when the matter is examined, it has been brought to the notice and effective steps have been taken, however, delay has occurred. Learned advocate, Shri Mrugen Purohit has also referred to the provision of the Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted that if the sufficient cause is made out, delay may be condoned and in the facts of the case, as there is no neligency or lapse on the part of the applicants, same may be condoned.

5. Learned advocate, Shri Atit Thakore submitted that approximate order may be passed.

6. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present civil application deserve to be considered.

7. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the application for bringing the heirs on record under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be considered with the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such matters of condonat ion of de lay inc luding the obs e rvat ions made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043 in case of Balvant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. wherein it has been observed, “The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.”

8. Therefore, when the statute has provided period of limitation, normally it has to be condoned within the time frame prescribed. However, whether the explanation offered could be considered and ‘sufficient cause’, is a matter, which could be considered depending upon the facts and circumstances.

9. It is well settled that normally the matters are required to be decided on merits rather than technicalities and, therefore, it should be considered keeping in mind broad guidelines with regard to the approach in matters of condonation of delay. A useful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in case of Balvant Singh (supra) and also judgments, where it has been observed that delay should be considered in a mean in full manner. Therefore considering the aspect of delay, justification is required to be considered and not a length of delay.

10. Therefore, present application stands allowed. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. Application allowed.