Court grants condonation of delay in Appeal from Order due to financial crisis, no prejudice to respondents.

The court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 399 days in filing an Appeal from Order. It found the financial crisis cited by the applicant to be a valid reason for the delay, noting the absence of mala fide intent or dilatory tactics. The court concluded that condoning the delay would not prejudice the respondents as the interim injunction was still in place. Consequently, the court granted the application, condoned the delay, and directed the registry to register the Appeal from Order without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay of 399 days in filing an Appeal from Order.
2. Financial crisis as a reason for the delay.
3. Opposition to the condonation of delay by the respondents.
4. Legal principles guiding the condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The original defendant No.4 filed a Civil Application seeking condonation of a 399-day delay in filing an Appeal from Order against an injunction order dated 20.11.2018, which restrained him from transferring or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the final disposal of the suit.

2. Financial Crisis as a Reason for Delay:
The applicant argued that a financial crisis prevented him from challenging the impugned order or developing the subject land. He claimed that through the help of friends and relatives, he has now gained financial stability and intends to develop the land. He cited financial difficulties as the primary reason for the delay and emphasized that refusing to condone the delay would defeat the cause of justice. The applicant referenced the Apex Court decisions in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors to support his plea for condonation.

3. Opposition by Respondents:
Respondent No.1 opposed the application, arguing that the reason for the delay—financial crisis—was not acceptable. They contended that the application lacked specifics and documentary evidence to substantiate the financial crisis claim. They also argued that the applicant exhibited total inaction, negligence, and lack of bona fides. It was also highlighted that the trial court had granted an injunction after considering the admitted position and documentary evidence. Respondent No.1 stressed that the suit property is ancestral, and the sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 was not for any legal necessity. They feared that allowing the applicant to sell or transfer the property would lead to multiplicity of litigation and urged the court to reject the application.

4. Legal Principles Guiding Condonation of Delay:
The court considered the legal principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing that it is a matter of judicial discretion. The length of the delay is secondary to the acceptability of the explanation provided. The court cited several precedents, including N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, which stated that the primary function of the court is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice. The court noted that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights but to ensure timely remedies. The court must consider whether the delay was due to bona fide reasons or dilatory tactics.

Judgment:
The court found that the applicant had a legal right to challenge the trial court's order and that the financial crisis could be considered a valid reason for the delay. The court noted that there was no evidence of mala fide intent or dilatory tactics by the applicant. The court concluded that condoning the delay would not prejudice the respondents, as the interim injunction was still in effect. Therefore, the court allowed the application, condoning the 399-day delay, and directed the registry to register the Appeal from Order accordingly. No order as to costs was made.

---