Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires 'sufficient cause' and due diligence; a liberal approach cannot override substantive limitation law, and blaming a lawyer's negligence does not excuse a litigant's failure to remain vigilant of their own rights.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Act”, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 906 days in filing the captioned second appeal before this Court and heard the appeal on merits, in the interest of justice.

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, parties to the proceedings are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2015 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Court, Kalyanpur seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner and occupier of land bearing survey No.329 admeasuring 2-42-81 h-a-sq mtr (in short “land in question”), revenue entry of which is also mutated in favour of the plaintiff. The land in question was purchased from the defendant No.1 on 10.12.1990. However, the plaintiff found that the defendant is trying to encroach upon the land in question which he owned and possessed and therefore, he has filed the Regular Civil Suit with the aforesaid relief.

3.1 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalyanpur on 30.4.2018 passed final decree in favour of the plaintiff and declared him as owner and also issued permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the possession of the plaintiff and further restrained the defendants from taking possession without due process of law and also issued injunction not to change hands of the land in question.

3.2 The defendant No.2, within the stipulated time limit, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2020 (Old No.14 of 2018), but she remained unsuccessful. The Regular Civil Appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Devbhoomi Dwarka.

3.3 In the aforesaid premises, the defendant No.2 since was intended to file second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, has preferred captioned second appeal.

3.4 Since there is delay in filing the second appeal, the defendant No.2 preferred present CA with a request to condone the delay of 906 days in preferring captioned second appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. JM Barot appearing for the defendant No.2, in line of the reasons stated in the CA, submitted that the defendant No.2 is old aged lady, she was not informed about the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below by his lawyer. He would further submit that the defendant No.2 came to know about passing of adverse order by the learned Courts below somewhere in January, 2025, thereafter, she discussed the issue with her family members and decided to file appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. He would further submit that for getting certified copy, the defendant No.2 applied on 22.7.2025 and obtained the same on 13.8.2025 and thereafter, the defendant No.2 through learned advocate who is representing her on 11.9.2025 has filed present CA along with captioned second appeal.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Barot would further submit that delay was properly explained by the defendant No.2 and therefore, this Court should take liberal approach and should not throw away the substantial litigation on technical consideration. He would further submit that as the delay has been properly explained by the defendant No.2 where there is no requirement to expl