The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays in property disputes, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

JUDGMENT

The order of the District Court in dismissing an application to condone the delay of 444 days and consequently dismissing the appeal itself is called into question in this appeal. Has the District Court shown insensitiveness while dismissing the application for condonation of delay is the prime concern of this Court in this appeal. Further this Court is also called upon to consider the question whether the principles governing the construction of sufficient cause while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be applied “conscientiously” while considering a litigation touching the property rights of litigants.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellants preferred IA No.1 of 2023 in AS No.69 of 2023 for condonation of the delay of 444 days in filing the appeal.

nd rd The appellants are the 2 and 3 defendants, respectively, in a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 31.1.2006. Later, the mother of the appellants died, and therefore, an application seeking for the passing of a supplementary preliminary decree was preferred. By judgment and decree dated 24.2.2022, a supplementary preliminary decree was passed, wherein, the share of the mother was allotted to the st

1 respondent. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an application for passing of the final decree. While the said application was pending, the appellants felt that the passing of the supplementary preliminary decree would operate against the interest of the appellants and therefore, filed AS No.69 of 2023. By the time, the appellants preferred AS No.69 of 2023, there occurred a delay of 444 days in filing of the appeal. The respondents appeared and contested the application, stating that the application for condonation of delay, being a discretionary relief, the appellants have to show cause as to why the delay occurred. The averments in the application does not disclose sufficient cause, and therefore prayed for the dismissal of the st application. The 1 appellate court, while considering the application, found that the delay had not been properly explained and therefore dismissed the Interlocutory Application and consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the First appellate Court was correct in dismissing the first appeal without considering the merits of the appeal by refusing to evaluate Ext.B1 settlement deed which is clouded with suspicious and surreptitious circumstances circumventing its execution and supervening factors which invalidate its authenticity and sanctity without appreciating the evidence.?

2. Whether the First appellate Court was correct in not following the principles and precedents of Sec 5 of the Limitation Act while dismissing the petition to condone delay filed by the appellants herein without going into the merits of the case?

3. Whether the Courts below were correct in accepting Ext B1 settlement deed by ignoring the contentions of the first respondent in his written statement of him owning the entire property by stating that the rest of the family members had lost their right by ouster and adverse possession.

3. Heard Sri. Smt. A Parvathy Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri. K.B Rajesh, the learned counsel st appearing for the 1 respondent and Sri.K.B. Rekha, the learned nd counsel appearing for the 2 respondent.

4. The reason stated by the Appellant is that the appellant was not able to consult