COVID-19 disruptions and bona fide communication difficulties constituted sufficient cause to condone appellate delay.

The appellants challenged a judgment and decree dated 24 February 2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 43-A/2012 by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur.

Their second appeal was delayed by 1,771 days. They sought condonation, relying on disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, their residence in a rural area, and difficulties communicating with counsel and obtaining case information and legal advice.

Respondent No. 1 opposed the application, contending that sufficient cause had not been shown; the State submitted that the substantive dispute was between the appellants and respondent No. 1.

Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause to condone the 1,771-day delay in filing the appeal

Whether, in the circumstances, the appeal should be permitted to proceed for consideration on its merits rather than be rejected as time-barred

The Court relied on the principle that the length of delay is not determinative; the acceptability of the explanation and whether the delay resulted from deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides are the relevant considerations.

Under N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the explanation for delay, rather than its duration alone, is material.

Under Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, and non-pedantic approach, while examining the party’s bona fides and conduct.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had passed orders extending or excluding limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court considered the pandemic’s disruption to court functioning and daily life, the appellants’ rural residence, and their stated difficulty maintaining communication with counsel and obtaining information and legal advice.

It found that the appellants took steps to file the appeal after obtaining the necessary information, and that the record disclosed neither deliberate delay nor mala fides or a dilatory strategy.

Applying the cited principles and noting that the appeal concerned rights in the suit property, the Court concluded that the explanation was sufficient to allow the dispute to be considered on its merits.

The application was disposed of, and the appeal was directed to be listed the week after next for admission.