ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. Delay of 2415 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned courts below is sought to be condoned by this application. It appears that as such the by the impugned judgment and order the petitioner is facing eviction proceedings.

3. Learned Advocate Ms.Saloni A Nikubh for Ms.Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is resident of Odessa and after the COVID pandemic is over when appellant returned back to Surat from Odessa, he came to know that decrees are passed against him as well as execution petition is also pending since 2017 as well as the order was also passed in the Execution Petition and therefore appellant preferred the Second Appeal where the delay is caused. She therefore prays to condone the delay.

4. At the outset, relevant observations made in paragraph 15 in the decision in case of Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Managing Committee Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [2013 (12) SCC 649] may be referred to which reads thus:

“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms "sucient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona des imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

5. Now, what could be said to be reasons for condonation of delay can be inferred from paragraph 3(a) and (b) of the application which reads thus:

“(b) Thenafter, applicant went to his native place Odessa because of Covid after coming hack