The principle of liberal construction in delay applications under limitation laws emphasized by the court.

1. This is the Plaintiff's Second Appeal preferred under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') against the judgment / order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir - Champa in M.J.C No.12/2015 whereby the lower appellate Court, while rejecting the Plaintiffs' application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal under S.5 of Indian Limitation Act , 1963, has dismissed the Appeal while maintaining the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Class - 1, Janjgir - Champa in Civil SuitNo.18 - A / 2014.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs' suit for redemption of immovable property was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated 21.8.2015 in Civil Suit NO.18 - A / 2014.

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Plaintiffs / Appellants have preferred an Appeal on 01.10.2015 and since some delay is there in filing the same, therefore, an application for condonation of its delay as required under S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act , 1963 was also filed. The said application was not controverted by the Respondents.

4. After considering the aforesaid application, the trial Court has rejected the same by its impugned judgment / order dated 2.7.2016 by observing that no reasons have been assigned for explaining each days' delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, the application was rejected and consequent upon that the Appeal preferred under S.96 was also dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal. By order dated 01.09.2016, this Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: -
'Whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the first appeal barred by limitation by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ?'

6. Mr. B.L. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the lower appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal view while entertaining the application for condonation of delay particularly when there was just 6 days' delay in filing the Appeal. However, the appellate Court, while adopting hyper - technical view, has erred in rejecting the same. He therefore submits that the judgment / order impugned may be set aside and the lower appellate Court may be directed to decide the Appeal on merits.

7. Shri Vikas Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondent No.l has supported the order impugned by submitting that since no sufficient reasons were assigned while filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the Court below.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

9. The Plaintiffs' suit for redemption of immovable property was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated 21.8.2015. Immediately after the delivery of the said judgment, an application for obtaining the certified copy of the same was filed on 10.9.2015 and accordingly, it was delivered on 15.9.2015. After obtaining the certified copy of the trial Court, an Appeal was preferred on 1.10.2015, therefore, the delay of 6 days' and not 11 days was occurred in filing the Appeal. Since there was a few days' delay in filing the Appeal, therefore, under such circumstances, the appellate Court, in order to provide substantial justice to the parties, ought to have adopted liberal view while entertaining the said application for condonation of delay. However, the lower appellate Court, by adopting a hyper - technical view, has dismissed the Appeal by refusing to condone the delay of few days in filing the same ev