Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires the establishment of 'sufficient cause'; a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitation laws, particularly when negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident.

Whether approved for rerporting?

Romesh Verma, Judge

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It has been averred in the application that the applicants were earlier under the impression that the suit is still before the District Judge, Sirmaur District Nahan, as a result of which the copy of impugned judgment could not be obtained. It has been stated in the application that the counsel who appeared and contested the case on behalf of the applicants had though intimated about the appeal well within time and had also written letters in the name of Branch Manager, H.P.M.C, Halonipul, Tehsil, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur H.P., but those letters were never attended to and were never forwarded to the Head Office at Shimla owing to the fact that the premises as well as the office of the HPMC at Rajgarh had been rented out to the Bhura Jams and they did not pay any heed to handover those letters which could have been regarding the decision of the case against the present applicants. Further, it has been averred that the applicants wfere under the bonafide belief that the suit is still pending. When the applicants came to know about the decision of the case have immediately applied for the certified copy of the judgments. After obtaining the judgments of the learned courts below, the Law Officer was consulted and after due deliberation, the applicants have decided to file the appeal. Thereafter, the applicants contacted its counsel regarding the fili ng of appeal in this Court and after perusing the judgments and the complete record, the present appeal has been filed. It has further been stated that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances.

2. The non-applicant has filed reply to the application and refuted all the averments as made in the application. It has been stated in the reply that the delay in filing the appeal is intentional and willful and no plausible explanation has been given for the delay in filing the appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file.

4. The admitted facts of the case are that the present applicants were the defendants before the learned trial Court. The non-applicants/respondents filed fa suit for possession, mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that the present applicants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and illegally. When the plaintiffs objected, the defendants asked the plaintiff to seek the demarcation of the suit land and thereafter the plaintiffs, got the suit land demarcated and it was found that they have illegally encroached over the suit land. There fore, the suit for possession on the basis of title was filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

5. The present applicants/defendants contested the suit by raising various objections and took the plea of adverse possession against the plaintiffs. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the non-applicants, however, in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2024, the suit as preferred by the present respondents for possession has been decreed.

6. The applicants in their application have admitted that the counsel who was appearing for the applicants in learned Courts below had