Condonation of delay requires establishing "sufficient cause" rooted in due diligence. Administrative lethargy and wait-and-see approaches do not constitute sufficient cause, particularly for inordinate delays. Courts must prioritize limitation periods to ensure the finality of proceedings and prevent stale claims from being adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present application, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeks condonation of an inordinate delay of 1006 days in preferring the captioned First Appeal.

2. Factual matrix of the case are as under:-

2.1 The lands of the applicants claimants situated at village Ambagam, Tal: Bayad, Dist: Sabarkantha came to be acquired by the State for the purpose of Suzlam Suflam spearing canal scheme by issuing notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 24.9.2004 and 22.11.2004 respectively. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6.50/- per sq mtr as compensation for the acquired lands. The claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, who by impugned common judgment and award, partly allowed the reference of the original claimants and granted amount of compensation of Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr.

2.2 After passing the judgment and award of the learned Reference Court on 13.4.2017, the applicants applied for certified copy of the judgment and award on 27.10.2021 and the same was prepared on the same date.

2.3 Thereafter, the applicants have filed First Appeal, but since, there is delay in filing the First Appeal, the applicants have filed present application for condonation of delay.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary appearing for the applicants in line of the ground stated in the application submitted that mainly delay has occurred since the applicants claimants have waited for the outcome of other group of matters arising out of the same judgment and award and after disposal of that group of matters, the claimants have filed the First Appeal with delay and therefore, present CAs are filed.

3.1 Merely upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary prays to allow these applications by condoning he delay and to register the First Appeal.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 did not appear despite last chance was granted by previous order.

4.1 Learned AGP vehemently opposed the applications and submitted that since there is huge delay not properly explained by the claimants, the same may be dismissed.

5. The factual assertion, which is stated in the foregoing paras are the main reasons stated to condone huge and colossal delay of 1006 days.

6. As far as delay has been sought to be condoned, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, let refer section 5 as under:-

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.”

7. The applicants were obliged to satisfactorily demonstrate and explicate the colossal delay and to convince the Court that sufficient cause existed for not preferring the appeal / application or moving the requisite application within the statutorily prescribed period. Ordinarily, the Courts adopt a liberal approach while considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, provided that the delay is duly attributable to suff