Heard Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gulam Asghar Hussain Khan, learned counsel representing Sri Shiva Kumar Manchena learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar in I.A.Nos.680 of 2023 in A.S.Sr. No.1117 of 2023. By the impugned order, the learned appellate court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 341 days in filing of an appeal against the preliminary decree dated 27.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.1089 of 2014 of 2019 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the learned appellate court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The lis between the parties originates from O.S. No. 1089 of 2014, instituted by Respondent No.1/plaintiff before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the plaint schedule property. Upon contest and full-fledged trial, the said suit came to be preliminarily decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2022, whereby the respective shares of the parties were declared. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred an Appeal Suit vide A.S. Sr. No. 1117 of 2023 with a delay of 341 days. Along with the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 680 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the said delay. The said application was opposed by Respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit.

b) The learned appellate court, upon hearing both sides and by order dated 04.12.2023, dismissed I.A. No. 680 of 2023 holding that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the said delay, and consequently, the appeal was not entertained.

c) Aggrieved by the said impugned order refusing to condone the delay, the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/ appellants:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended the appellate court erred in dismissing I.A. No. 680 of 2023, which was filed for condoning the delay in presenting the appeal against the judgment and preliminary decree in the Original Suit, without properly appreciating the material facts of the case. It is further contended that the appellate court ought to have adopted a liberal approach and allowed the application subject to imposition of costs, as no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents, and that the rejection of the application on technical grounds has resulted in denial of an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated on merits, rendering the order unsustainable in law.

6. It is further contended that the appellate court failed to appreciate that the provision for condonation of delay is a remedial measure intended to advance substantial justice, and in fact the settlement negotiations between the parties contributed to the delay, and having participated in such negotiations, it is not open for the respondents to oppose the condonation. It is also urged that the appellate court erred in disregarding the judicial precedents relied upon by them and dismissing the application on the ground that no reasonable cause was shown.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy¹AIR 1998 SC 3222 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji²AIR 1987 SC 1353 wherein it was held that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion and that the leng