(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:17)

(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:13)ti(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:27)ti(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:11)

(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:21)

(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)

(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:30) !"(cid:11)#$(cid:11)%"&’(’#)*(cid:11)(cid:6)+,(cid:9)(cid:6),(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:17)

(cid:27)ti(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:18)-(cid:18).(cid:11)(cid:2)ti(cid:27)(cid:27).(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:27)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:19) ,,(cid:3)//"00 )!

-"1(2(

(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:1) ,,(cid:1)"(/#)%")!(

(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:15)*(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:19)3(cid:29).(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:2),(cid:11)(cid:28)ti(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:24)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:2)ti(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:3)

Present: Mr. Sumer Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellant.

(cid:2)ti(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:3)4(cid:11)(cid:28),(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)1 0(cid:16)

The present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 and 30.04.2015 with delay of 1894 days in filing the appeal.

CM-1486-C-2023

1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC is filed for condonation of delay of 1894 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 1894 days in filing the present appeal is purely procedural and unintentional. It is contended that the appeal was initially filed on 09.03.2017, but was returned on multiple occasions due to objections raised by the registry, and was diligently re-filed each time i.e. on 25.05.2017, 27.09.2017, and thereafter again in the year 2018.

3. During this process, the file was inadvertently misplaced from the objection pad, and despite bona fide and sustained efforts, it could not be traced for a considerable period. The delay, therefore, lacks any element of negligence or mala fides and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant at length and, with his able assistance, carefully perused the whole file of this case.

5. Before examining the merits of the present application, it is pertinent to note the settled position that delay is not to be condoned as a matter of generosity or benevolence; the pursuit of substantial justice cannot come at the cost of prejudice to the opposite party.

6. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but has substantive value, being founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 seeks to ensure that litigants approach the Court within a reasonable period and do not sleep over their rights. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the Court to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown, such discretion is neither automatic nor to be exercised as a matter of course. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Apex court in Maniben Devraj Shah v Municipal corporation of Brigham Mumbai 2012(5) SCC

157,wherein it is held as under:

“The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the par