Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE present Petitioners were the Defendants in the suit for permanent injunction titled Malkit Singh and another v. Mohinder Singh and Ors. The suit was decreed on 30.9.2008. The Defendant -Petitioners preferred an appeal. The appeal was barred by limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 137 days in filing the appeal was also preferred. The same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.4.2009 and so as the appeal. Hence, this revision. Heard.
(2.) THE main reason for dismissal of the application is that initially, it was claimed that Mohinder Singh, one of the Defendants, was in Army and during examination of the witnesses, it was revealed that it was not Mohinder Singh but it was his brother Surinder Singh who was serving in the Army. All the Defendants are real brothers. Such like confusions do occur when pleadings are drafted by the counsel otherwise they were nothing to gain out of it. The expression "sufficient case" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub -serves the ends of justice. Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay but this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. In the instant case, as indicated above, the delay is not inordinate. The Court should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In back -drop of the above facts, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent -Plaintiffs, in the trial Court.
(3.) PARTIES through their counsel are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 18.7.2011, who shall admit the appeal and then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.;