ORDER:

1. The present revision has been directed against order dated 31.05.2010 in I.A.No.756 of 2004 in ASSR.No.2572 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the first appeal was dismissed.

2. The facts show that the petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit, filed the first appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2003 in O.S.No.292 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent herein was the plaintiff. The said suit was filed for specific performance of agreement allegedly executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent. The appeal is filed with a delay of 48 days. The averments of the petition show that the delay was on account of financial incapacity and he was making attempt to secure the money to meet the litigation expenses for filing the appeal. It is also pleaded that the respondent herein also filed a criminal case against the revision petitioner and he was defending the said case. On account of multiple litigations, he was mentally disturbed, which impacted on his earning capacity so that he could not meet the litigation expenses to carry out further proceedings and according to him the delay was not intentional and for the reasons stated above.

3. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was having sufficient money to meet the expenses for litigation and the application is filed belatedly.

4. The appellate Court appreciated the pleadings of the petitioner and found that the three reasons, which he have claimed, i.e., pendency of criminal case, mental disturbance and financial incapacity, were not bona fide claims, as they have not been established and they are not sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 48 days. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. Heard.

6. Unfortunately, this revision is filed in the year 2010 and nearly for 12 years the revision could not be taken up for hearing. On going through the impugned order, it shows that the first appellate Court has not extended liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach and dealt with the application in pedantic manner, which is not the substantial justice oriented, which is the ultimate goal of the entire judicial system. The first appellate Court has also not considered the short duration of 48 days, which condonation do not result any prejudice to other side. If there is an inordinate delay, the doctrine of prejudice will apply. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the elaborate principles made by the Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others1, which held as follows:

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 (cid:147)sufficient cause(cid:148) 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 is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and ca