BALRAM SINGH Vs. HANSI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, which was admitted on following substantial question of law: -

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.7.2007 along with an application for condonation of delay, as the appeal was barred by 2 months and 8 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant had stated that he could not receive the information about the judgment and decree dated

(3.) 4.2007 passed by the trial Court as his mother was not well. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2011 rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is made out. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and in the result, the appeal was dismissed. 3. It is well settled in law that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It has further been held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted 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 non -deliberate delay. [See: State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94].