SHAMSHAD ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1997 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 371 of 1991. The appeal is reported to have been filed with a delay of one year and 242 days. It is stated that earlier the appellants were pursuing review application before the Court below due to wrong advise which was withdrawn on 9.7.1999. Thereafter, the applicants, being poor persons and small farmers, anyhow managed the expenses for filing this appeal and then came to Allahabad on 29.8.1999 and instructed the papers to their counsel for filing this appeal.

(2.) It is further stated that the delay, if any, in filing this appeal has occurred due to wrong advise of counsel and therefore it may be condoned.

(3.) The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal, revision etc. may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, 1987 2 SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.