UCHHAV LAL Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal rising out of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent against the appellants. The said suit was decreed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bundi by his judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1983. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed as being barred by limitation, by the Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi vide his judgment dated 29th March, 1984. Feeling aggrieved by the said judg-ment and decree of the Civil Judge, the appellants have filed this second appeal.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the merits, I may consider the preliminary objection that has been raised by the learned counsel for. the respondent that this appeal is barred by limitation. It may be stated that the appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The facts relevant for the purpose of considering this objection are, briefly, as under: -

(3.) IT would thus appear that the decision in G. Ramegowda, Major vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (supra ). on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, also reiterates the principle earlier laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji (1) that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate action or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.