Liberal approach to condonation of delay applies where explanation is bona fide and no mala fides are shown.

Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be assessed on a liberal, justice-oriented basis where the explanation is bona fide and no deliberate negligence or mala fides is shown. The delay was supported by affidavits from counsel and the Revenue Officer, was not shown to lack good faith, and was short in duration. Given the involvement of valuable immovable property rights, the delay ought to have been condoned as sufficient cause was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the second appeal was liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was supported by affidavits of the counsel and the Revenue Officer and was not shown to be lacking in bona fides. The dispute involved valuable immovable property rights, and the delay was of short duration. In such circumstances, the Court held that a liberal, rather than a rigid or technical, approach should be adopted while considering sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was made out, and the delay ought to have been condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be decided on a liberal and justice-oriented approach where the explanation is bona fide and no deliberate negligence or mala fides is shown.

---