The court must adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach in considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dated 23.01.2019 in I.A. No.707 of 2014 in RA(SR) No.4543 of 2014, wherein, the petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal against the eviction orders, dated 09.10.2013 in R.C.No.366 of 2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is not personally attending to the Tribunal due to her old aged ailments, and her husband was attending. After the death of her husband, the petitioner and other legal heirs were not attending the Tribunal because her elder son is residing in abroad for his livelihood and younger son is not abled person. It is further alleged that she had no knowledge about the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller and without her knowledge, notice eviction orders were passed on 09.10.2013, and she came to know about the eviction orders only when the Field Assistant came along with Police Officials to PSP for vacating her, and all of a sudden, they got vacated her and her family members on 15.09.2014 pursuant to the delivery warrant issued in E.P.No.13 of 2014, and thus, respondent No.1 played fraud upon her, hence, prayed to allow the application.

3. After hearing both sides, the application was dismissed by the trial Court stating that there is no explanation and sufficient reason for abnormal delay of 356 days and it cannot be condoned in a routine and mechanical way and there is no justifiable grounds in the petition to condone the abnormal delay of 356 days in preferring the appeal and even, otherwise, the petitioner now became 80 years old and she cannot engage herself personally in any business and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the petition.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed stating that the impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is an old lady and sick which is proved by the Doctor’s certificate and her husband passed away. The trial Court ought to have observed that just because the petitioner goes in a wheel chair with an attendant, she is not diligent enough to pursue the case and there were cogent and valid reasons set out in the affidavit to explain the delay in filing, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court not considered the cause stated by her for condoning the delay and there are fair grounds to condone the delay not only her illness and her husband also passed away, and there is no male member to proceed with the case, as such, delay occurred and it is not necessary to explain day to day delay in each and every case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2023) 10 SCC 531.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the present petition as the order is of the year 2013 and after giving ample opportunities only, the trial Court decreed the suit and E.P. was ordered. Moreover, the property got vacated long back in the year 2014. At the time of filing set aside petition, the petitioner was 83 years old and she cannot do any business in future and not only the days or months, it is almost one year delay in filing the appeal and it cannot be condoned in a routine manner, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the petition, as such, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, while dealing with the petition under Section