Seven-day delay condoned: liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 Limitation Act restored appeal

SC allowed the appeal and condoned a seven-day delay in filing, holding the lower civil judge erred in refusing to treat the delay as "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court noted the vacation period and that the appellant filed promptly once able, reflecting an effort to minimize delay rather than mala fides. The High Court also erred under Section 115 CPC by not correcting the appellate court's mistake. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Civil Revision Application No. 884 of 1999 dated August 7, 2000, regarding the dismissal of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 21 of 1997 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of the trial court in Special C. S. No. 5 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge, S. D. Amalner.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant's application for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the appeal was dismissed by the learned civil judge based on two grounds: the delay in applying for a certified copy after the judgment was delivered, and the appellant's illness mentioned as the reason for the delay. The court failed to consider that the period included court vacation days, and the appellant's prompt filing upon feeling better showed a genuine effort to minimize delay. The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, distinguishing between inordinate delays and minor delays. The court criticized the civil judge's erroneous application of the law and the High Court's failure to correct this error under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Civil Judge, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, restored the appeal to the civil judge's file, and directed the civil judge to decide the appeal on its merits. The appeal was allowed with no costs incurred.

---