Sufficient cause and limited revisional review can justify condonation of delay in filing a first appeal.

Delay in filing a first appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where sufficient cause is shown, and medical incapacity supported by prescription slips and treatment records can justify a liberal, justice-oriented approach. On the facts recorded, the 170-day delay was accepted because the appellant was undergoing treatment and could not consult counsel within limitation. Revisional interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not warranted when the appellate court has exercised discretion judicially on the basis of the material before it and no jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in condoning the 170-day delay in filing the first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; (ii) Whether the revisional court should interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in condoning the 170-day delay in filing the first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was founded on the respondent's medical condition, supported by prescription slips and medical documents. The record showed that the appeal was filed after 170 days, but the materials on record indicated that the respondent was undergoing treatment and was unable to consult counsel within limitation. In such circumstances, the delay was found to be supported by sufficient cause, warranting a liberal and justice-oriented approach under the law of limitation.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was held to be justified and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court should interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Interference in revision was considered unwarranted because the First Appellate Court had exercised discretion on the basis of pleadings and documents on record and had not acted illegally or with material irregularity. The order condoning delay did not disclose any jurisdictional error or perversity calling for revisional correction.

Conclusion: No interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was warranted, and the challenge to the condonation order failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court upheld the order condoning delay and declined to disturb the appellate court's exercise of discretion, leaving the respondent's appeal to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be condoned on sufficient cause shown, and revisional interference is not justified where the subordinate court has exercised discretion judicially without illegality or material irregularity.

---