I.P.MUKERJI, J. - (1.) The Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 had said that a litigant ordinarily had no interest in delaying an appeal and that the court should not take a very harsh view in entertaining an application for condonation of delay in preferring it. Instead it had laid down the principles for taking a liberal and sympathetic view of the matter in appropriate situations. The highest court had also observed that in dismissing appeals, which were filed after much delay, the court often could not do justice in meritorious cases. Delay could be condoned to advance substantial justice (see M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, (2001) 6 SCC 176). In cases where there was gross miscarriage of justice even delay of more than a decade could be condoned (see B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 123). Delay could be condoned in greater public interest (see Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (2015) 3 SCC 569 following State of Nagaland v. B. Lipok AO and Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752).
(2.) The phrase "sufficient cause" is to be meaning fully construed so as to advance substantial justice by avoiding technicalities (see Dhiraj Singh (dead) through legal representatives and ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 127).
(3.) Therefore, the principles to be followed in entertaining the application to condone the delay in filing an appeal is not only to consider whether sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay, but also to investigate the merits of the matter, prima facie, so as to satisfy the court that a meritorious matter is not thrown out of the court and there is no miscarriage of justice.;