Condonation of delay can be granted when public interest is involved, even if explanations for the delay are inadequate.

562 of 2025 Two appeals are taken up for analogous consideration as they emanate out of the same impugned order.

In both the appeals, there are applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 .

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent who is stated to be the promoter opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. He submits that adequate explanation does not appear from the application for condonation of delay and that there are defects in the appeals as noted by our order dated June 30, 2025.

Learned advocates appearing for the other respondents in addition to the objections raised by the private respondent draw the attention of the Court to the pleadings in the application. It is also pointed out that there are certain typographical errors.

Court is concerned not with the quantum of the delay but with the quality of the explanation. Court are also to be required to be lenient in considering the request for condonation of delay.

In the present case, the appellants claim that they on receipt of the notice under the Contempt of Court’s Act decided to prefer the appeal. The explanation is that subsequent to the knowledge of the contempt notice, they sought to prefer the present appeal.

It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the appellants were present before the learned Single Judge when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the appellants were well aware of the impugned judgment and order and did not proceed with regard thereto till such time it received the contempt notice.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that his clients did not offer any explanation for the delay between the period of date of the impugned judgment and order till receipt of the contempt notice.

However, he points out to the merits of the present case.

The writ petitions in which the impugned judgments and orders were passed concerns transfer of an immovable property. Apparently, it is the claim of the writ petitioner that there was an agreement for a lease and that the original allottee executed a power of attorney in favour of the writ petitioner and that the writ petitioner is entitled to such property.

There is an issue also where the heirs of the original allottee are entitled to execution of the deed of lease.

Immovable properties of the Government are involved. These immovable properties were sought to be given on lease to various allottees. Apparently, the original allottees in the writ petitions did not obtain duly executed lease deed in their favour in respect of the immovable properties concerned.

Issues raised are required to be considered since public interest is involved. Not admitting the appeals purely on the ground of delay may not be in public interest.

In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in making and filing the appeals.

CAN 1 of 2025 in both the appeals are allowed.

It would be appropriate to permit the appellants to prepare an informal paper book incorporating all papers used before the learned Single Judge.

List the appeals in the Monthly List of August 2025.