Condonation of delay and restoration of execution objections: limitation technicalities should not defeat adjudication on merits.

Delay in filing the first appeal against the order confirming sale was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the delay was not treated as inordinate or warranting a hypertechnical refusal, and the appellant's reliance on counsel and absence of deliberate neglect weighed against rejection on limitation grounds. The Court further held that, where no mala fides were shown and no substantial prejudice resulted, disputes should ordinarily be decided on merits. The objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which had been dismissed for default after closure of evidence, were therefore restored and remitted to the executing court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, subject to costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the first appeal against the order confirming sale deserved condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and whether the objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay was not found to be so inordinate as to justify rejection on a hypertechnical approach. The appellant's conduct was assessed in the light of the circumstances, including reliance on its advocate and the absence of deliberate callousness. The Court emphasized that, where malafides are not apparent and no substantial prejudice is caused, matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than defeated on limitation technicalities. Since the executing court had closed the appellant's evidence and dismissed the objections for default, the proper course was to restore the objections and remit them for adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant's objections under Order 21 Rule 90 were remitted to the executing court for fresh decision on merits, subject to payment of costs.

---