ECLECTIC DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Vs. SMITA DATTA MAKHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Raju Shrivastav, Advocate is present on Caveat. He is discharged.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel on the application for condonation of delay and have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions.

(3.) There is no doubt that in plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with the Appeals and the Revisions, the approach of the Courts should be liberal. However, the Courts have put the burden on the party seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeals or Revisions to explain delay of each and every date showing sufficient cause. Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of 'sufficient cause' in Basavraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR(SCW) 6510. The Apex Court has held that meaning of 'sufficient cause' is that delay was due to bona fide on the part of the party and that party has not acted in a negligent manner or remained inactive. Hon'ble Supreme Court has, however, held that 'sufficient cause' means adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the Court within the limitation and held as under: