Summary
The Court condoned a 52-day delay in a first appeal concerning immovable-property rights and restored the appeal for decision on merits. The lower courts had adopted an unduly technical approach despite the appellants’ explanation that they lacked knowledge of the decree and had not effectively participated beyond filing a written statement.
Issues
- Whether refusal to condone the 52-day delay in the first appeal was justified on the circumstances of the property dispute.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Sufficient cause was assessed with a justice-oriented approach; the short delay and the explanation about lack of knowledge warranted condonation in this case. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Held
- The explanation that the appellants lacked knowledge of the judgment required consideration, particularly because they had not effectively participated except by filing their written statement. With only 52 days’ delay and substantial immovable-property rights involved, the appeal should have proceeded on merits. (¶ 3)
- The sufficient-cause standard calls for a rational, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach rather than a pedantic demand to explain every day mechanically. The refusal in these circumstances was unjustified; the High Court also erred in simply declining a question of law. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- The appellate judgments were set aside, delay condoned and the first appeal restored. All merits contentions remained open; parties were directed to appear without fresh notice on 23 August 2023 at 11 a.m., and the appeal was to be decided expeditiously according to law. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Appeal disposed of; both appellate judgments set aside, 52-day delay condoned and first appeal restored for expeditious merits disposal. Parties to appear on 23 August 2023 at 11 a.m. without fresh notice; all contentions open.