ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.G.R.Vijayalakshmi appearing for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Mayuri Savaliya for learned advocate Mr.Minhaj Shaikh for the respondents.

2. By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant seeks to condone the delay of 1337 days caused in preferring the second appeal challenging concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Vijayalakshmi would submit that the applicant is handicapped and 70 years old person and therefore, he could not approach before the Legal Service Authority within stipulated time period. Considering this aspect, the Court may take liberal approach and permit the applicant to litigate his cause on the merits by condoning the delay. She would further submit that the applicant has sufficiently explained his inability to move the Court for filing the second appeal. In view of that, she submits to allow this application.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Savaliya for the respondents submits that the applicant has not properly explained the delay. No reasons are assigned by the applicant which could be said to be sufficient explanation and in absence of sufficient reasons, the delay condonation application may not be allowed. She would further submit that even otherwise there is concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and therefore, there is no merit in the second appeal. Upon above submissions, she submits to dismiss this application.

5. Law of limitation is founded on the public policy. Law of limitation is not meant to destroy the right of party on prosecuting his list within stipulated time period. By passage of time law evolves to the concept of liberal approach and substantial justice but provided that delay is properly explained. In the present application, the applicant has explained the delay in para 2 and 3 which reads as under :

“2. The applicant has filed the aforesaid Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 12th October, 2017 passed by the Ld. 4th Additional District Judge, Amreli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2016 in judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge Vadia in Regular Civil Suit No. 07 of 2019 on 27.1.2016 and decree dated 02.02.2016 has filed the aforesaid Second Appeal against the same under section 100 Of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The applicant respectfully states and submits that the applicant is handicapped person, poor person and illiterate person who does not know the legal formalities . Applicant respectfully states and submits that after taking legal advise, the applicant has approached the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee to provide legal assistance to the applicant Thereafter, after completing the legal formalities , the Ld. Advocates was instructed by the legal services committee to file appropriate proceedings before this Honourable Court. The panel Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, after getting certified copies has filed the aforesaid Second Appeal . Therefore, some delay has taken place in preferring the Second Appeal. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, delay in preferring the Second Appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice. The applicant is a handicapped senior citizen.”

6. In recent judgment in case of K.B.Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) vs. Gyanendra Pratap and others – 2024 (0) INSC 281, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring its earlier judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, has observed as under :

“10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfact