Rules of limitation aim to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure timely justice; sufficient cause for delay is gauged by the circumstances, not merely the duration.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----

For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate Mr. K. Hari, Advocate, Advocate -----

06/12.06.2025 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This second appeal has been filed on 08.04.2024 and it is barred by

525 days.

3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that for condonation of delay of 525 days, I.A. No.10652 of 2024 has been filed. He submits that the appellants have filed the instant second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2022 (decree signed on 05.01.2023) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa in Civil Appeal No.05 of 2020, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2016 (decree signed on 23.02.2016) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Garhwa in Title Suit No.6 of 2014 has been reversed. He then submits that the judgment has been passed ex-parte against the appellants by the learned first appellate court without proper service of notice upon them. However, when it has come to the knowledge of the appellants, they enquired about the matter decided by the learned first appellate court and, thereafter contacted their lawyer and obtained certified copy of the order on 12.04.2024 and after receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same was discussed with the local counsel, who advised the appellants to move before this Court. He submits that in this background, the delay has occurred. He puts more emphasis on non-service of notice upon the appellants herein. He submits that the courts are liberal in condoning the delay if sufficent cause is shown. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment read as under:

“10. The reason for such a different stance is thus:

The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the