(1.) This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 785 days delay in filing the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the delay is on account of the fact that the applicant is an illiterate lady, aged 53 years. Her husband is a handicapped person and thus, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. The second ground which has been urged seeking condonation of delay is that post passing of the preliminary decree on 19.07.2016, the matter was referred to the mediation centre and the matter remained pending for almost two years and thus, during this period, no appeal could be filed as the appellant/applicant was hopeful for an amicable settlement.
(2.) Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled law, that while deciding an application seeking condonation of delay, the courts must adopt a liberal approach. He has placed strong reliance on a judgment reported at titled as N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 7 SCC 123 more particularly paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Additionally, reliance is placed on Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida reported at, 2018 3 Scale 696, State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Bal Kishan Mathur reported at, 2014 1 SCC 592 and Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank and Others reported at, 2000 9 SCC 733.
(3.) Mr. Chaudhri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has opposed this application. It is contended that the application is not bona fide and the same does not disclose the correct and true facts. Mr. Chaudhri does not dispute that after the preliminary decree was passed on 19.07.2016 and the matter was referred to the mediation centre for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the property can be divided by metes and bounds and if not, the mode of partition, but contends that this did not prevent the appellant/applicant from filing an appeal and infact during the period the matter was pending before the Mediation Centre, the intent was to implement the order.