Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is reported to have been filed with a delay of 347 days. Only explanation given in paragraphs no.3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of this application reads as under:- "3. That, however, the Corporation authorities did not come to know of the said award. The Corporation authorities came to know of the award only on 1.7.1999 and, thereafter, certified copy fo the award was applied for by the Corporation, which was ready on 23.7.1999 and received on 27.7.1999. Thereafter, the same day the certified copy fo the award was forwarded to the Regional Manager of the Corporation at Kanpur who in turn forwarded the same to the Head Office fo the Corporation at Lucknow. Subsequently, when the matter was examined at the Head Office fo the Corporation at Lucknow and it was noticed that despite the fact that the Claims Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles ( truck and Corporation bus), yet the Claims Tribunal failed to approtion the negligence and accordingly the Corporation and the owner of the truck were liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 4. That, thereafter, directions were given to file a review application against the impugned award and accordingly a review application was filed before the Tribunal on 13.10.1999. However, the learned Tribunal taking a highly technical view that as no satisfactory explanation ohad been given for the delay in filing the review application and as day to day delay had not been properly explained, has vide order dated 20.2.2001 rejected the said review application. The matter was again referred to the Head Office of the Corporation at Lucknow and, thereafter, the decision was taken to file an appeal against the impugned award. Thereafter, the Regional Manager, directed the dealing assistant was directed to contact the Counsel for the Corporation at Allahabad for filing the appeal and accordingly, the dealing assistant contacted the counsel for the Corporation at Allahabad on 28.6.2001. 5. That, however, as the entire records of the case were not furnished to the counsel for the Corporation at Allahabad, hence the dealing assistant was directed to furnish the same. The dealing assistant again contacted the counsel along with the entire records on 15.7.2001 and the appeal was drafted on 18.7.2001 and was ready on 4.8.2001.
(2.) It is true that when State is a party, and file appeal with some delay, it may deserve some leverage for official hierarchical steps for permission etc. but a wholly unexplained, reckless and negligent approach of delay running in almost one and half years and more cannot be overlooked particularly when it is not the case of applicants that they have taken any action against erring individual.
(3.) The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987 2 SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.;