Liberal condonation of delay in property appeal restored the first appeal for decision on merits.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applied on a justice-oriented and liberal basis, with the Court holding that a 52-day delay in filing the first appeal was sufficiently explained by the appellants' lack of awareness of the earlier judgment and limited participation in the suit. In a dispute involving immovable property, the Court emphasised that substantial rights should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than defeated by a narrow approach to condonation. The lower appellate court's refusal to condone delay, and the High Court's refusal to interfere, were set aside, and the first appeal was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay was only 52 days and was explained on the basis that the appellants were not aware of the earlier judgment and had not effectively participated in the suit except by filing a written statement. In matters concerning immovable property, the Court emphasised that substantial rights should ordinarily be decided on merits and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 calls for a justice-oriented and liberal approach where sufficient cause is shown. The rejection of condonation by the lower appellate court, and the High Court's refusal to interfere, were found inconsistent with that approach.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was required to be condoned, the orders of the lower appellate court and the High Court were set aside, and the first appeal was restored to the lower appellate court for decision on merits.

---