(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th March, 2010 whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was unexplained delay of 111 days and that the applicant had failed to show sufficient cause for its condonation.
(2.) It is logical that if an application under Section 5 is dismissed then as a corollary the appeal or the main petition too would be dismissed as barred by limitation. Mr. Arvind Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had relied upon dicta of the Supreme Court in "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Ktiji & Ors., 1987 1 LLJ 500" and " State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors., 2005 3 SCC 752", which held that the Courts should take a liberal approach in condoning delay and in considering the question whether sufficient cause exists or not, they should consider all the facts and circumstances especially procedural technicalities in the matters pertaining to the Government and its authorities. The Trial Court was of the view that each and every explanation, however absurd or implausible the same may be, should not be considered sufficient cause. The Trial Court was further of the view that the appellant had failed to explain the delay by showing any sufficient cause. It noted that the averments in the application, that the relevant file was handed over to the ALO concerned, who in turn attached the file with some other files, thus inadvertently burying the relevant file and leading to the delay, is not supported by any particulars as to who the said ALO was, nor has any supporting affidavit by the said ALO been filed to support the averments.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of this Court in "MCD vs. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India, 2005 1 AD(Del) 53" which held that in a case of inaction and negligence, no indulgence can be given to the appellant for condonation of delay:-