IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of condonation of delay, emphasizing a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach and the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cause'. The court highlighted the relevance of the conduct, behavior, and attitude of the party seeking condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

1. This civil revision petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dtd. 20/2/2017 in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 in AS SR No.18367 of 2015 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. The revision petitioners - defendants preferred an appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment dtd. 9/9/2015 in O.S.No.1117 of 2012 passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with an application in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule 7(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order dtd. 20/2/2017 in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 in ASSR No.18367 of 2015 passed the following order: "...Perused the judgment dtd. 9/9/2015 in O.S.No.1117 of 2012. Considering the fact that there are several other 15 defendants available on record, but no one contacted the counsel in time to prefer the appeal and the reasons stated by the petitioners for the abnormal delay of 96 days is neither sufficient nor convincing to condone the same. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs".

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners have rightly shown the sufficient cause and explained the delay of 96 days. In spite of the same, the trial Court dismissed the application to condone the delay of 96 days without any valid reasons. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity and prayed to allow the revision.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others,(2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 649. whereunder at Para No.14 held as under:

"14. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others (2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906, the Court, after referring to New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shanti Misra ((1975) 2 SCC 840, N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123: AIR 1998 SC 3222, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani ((1996) 3 SCC 132 and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634, came to hold that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may result in public mischief".

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that he has no objection to set aside the impugned order dtd. 20/2/2017 in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 in AS SR No.18367 of 2015 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and the only questions that arise for consideration is, whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 96 days in preferring the appeal and whether the impugned order sustainable in law?

8. The legislature has conferred the power to condone the delay by enacting Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to both the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression 'sufficient cause' shown is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.

9. It was stressed that there should not be a pedantic approach and the matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred over the technical considerations.

10. In Esha Bhattacharjee's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of considering the application for condonation of delay, categorically held in para No.21 to 21.13 as under:

"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1 (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with