1 / 4 CGHC010079582021 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 65 of 2021 SANDHYA PRADHAN D/O PARMESHWAR PRADHAN (DIED) versus BALBHADRA Order Sheet 24/08/2026 Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shobhit Koshtha, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rishi Kant Sinha, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. J. P. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A. No.01/2021 – an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal is barred by limitation of 948 days. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that initially the appeal filed by the original plaintiff, namely, Sandhya Pradhan. He further submits that the plaintiff is an old and illiterate lady residing in a remote area of Odisha since the year 2016 and, owing to her age, illiteracy and remote place of residence, she could not obtain information regarding the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 / 4 submitted that on 03.11.2020, when the plaintiff came to know from someone that the name of her father was still continuing in the revenue records despite his death in the year 2007, she moved an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur, for mutation on the basis of death (Fouti Namantaran), whereupon she came to know that the learned lower appellate Court had already passed the judgment and decree against her. Thereafter, she applied for certified copies of the judgment, decree and other relevant documents, which were made available to her on 27.02.2021, and thereafter, after arranging the requisite funds and consulting the local counsel, she preferred the present appeal before this Court. He further submits that during the pendency of this appeal, legal representative of the original plaintiff are substituted and brought on record, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, and therefore, prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. To strengthen the submission, learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble 3 / 4 Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 as observed that sufficient cause should be construed liberally, delay is not appears to be malafide and deliberate; and in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. The reply to application for condonation of delay has not been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents orally submit that the appellants have not been able to show the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and looking to the huge delay of 948 days the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is duly supported by an affidavit. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the parties and upon 4 / 4 Saxena due consideration and for the reasons assigned by the appellants in the application and also considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of N. Balakrishnan (supra) and Esha Bhattacharjee (supra), the same is allowed. Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 is allowed and delay of 948 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge