A delay of 2348 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the applicant fails to establish 'sufficient cause' and exhibits gross negligence, as the liberal approach to limitation does not extend to lack of diligence or administrative inaction.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.

2. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM 14-C-2023) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 2348 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

3. It has been asserted in the application that the instant appeal was filed in the Registry of this Court on 15.09.2020 and the same was returned with certain objections on 08.02.2021. It has further been averred that after removal of the said objections, the appeal was re-filed on 06.11.2022 and in this process the delay of 2348 days occurred.

4. It has further been mentioned that a departmental enquiry was held against the concerned officials for delaying the filing of the appeal. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who gave his report on 29.03.2022, reporting wherein that one Sh. Varinder Kumar, Clerk was responsible for not bringing the relevant record to the notice of the authorities and not supplying copy of the order and further not taking any steps for filing the appeal before this Court. It has further been mentioned that no action could be taken against the aforesaid official as he had already retired from the service.

5. Learned counsel representing the applicant-appellant, while reiterating the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, argues that the delay in filing the appeal, is neither intentional nor willful and rather, the same is due to the circumstances explained above. It is further argued that it is settled law that matters should not be decided on technicalities and rather, the same should be decided on merits.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, but find the same to be devoid of merit.

7. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring an appeal or an application (other than an application under the provisions of Order XXI CPC) within the prescribed period, the same may be admitted after the prescribed period as well. It is by now well settled that the Courts have to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. It is also well settled that normally, parties should be heard on merits and should not be non suited on technicalities. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 785, the Hon’ble Apex Court culled out the principles with regard to condonation of delay. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

“From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant