Condonation of delay should be the rule to advance substantial justice unless gross negligence is proved.

The appellant society filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 22/02/2011.

The appellant filed a regular first appeal on 09/05/2013, resulting in a delay of 2 years and 46 days.

The appellant submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contending that their counsel failed to communicate the judgment and they only discovered the status of the case when the respondent began construction on the site on 10/04/2013.

The First Appellate Court rejected the condonation application on 10/05/2013.

The appellant subsequently challenged this rejection through the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay for "sufficient cause".

The term “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

Acceptance of an explanation for delay should be the rule, while rejection should be the exception, provided there is no gross negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides.

The Court reasoned that the appellant society stood to gain no benefit from delaying the appeal and, conversely, its members would suffer irreparable injury if the case were not heard on merits.

The Court observed that the First Appellate Court had adopted a "pedantic and hyper-technical" approach.

It accepted the appellant’s explanation that a change in the Society’s President, coupled with the counsel's failure to communicate the Trial Court's decision, constituted a bona fide mistake rather than intentional negligence.

Following the balancing test established in Ram Nath Sao, the Court held that since the stakes were high and the explanation plausible, the interest of justice required a liberal approach over a technical dismissal.

The High Court set aside the order dated 10/05/2013, allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and condoned the delay. The matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for a decision on merits, with a direction for the parties to appear on 21st July 2026.