AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2164 ::2002 AIR SCW 1946 ::(2002) 142 ELT 275 ::2002 SCFBRC 481 ::(2002) 1 Orissa LR 303 ::2002 UJ(SC) 2 838 ::(2002) 3 CivLJ 1 ::(2002) 2 All RentCas 139 ::2002 (4) SCC 458 ::(2002) 3 RecCivR 202 ::(2002) 4 Scale 38 ::2002 All CJ 1 674 ::(2002) 2 CurCC 143 ::(2002) 3 All WC 1838 ::(2002) 47 All LR 791 ::(2002) 3 ICC 371 ::(2003) 1 ICC 371 ::(2002) 2 JLJR 228 ::(2002) 2 JCR 176 (SC) ::(2002) 3 Raj LW 479 ::(2002) 2 Pun LR 369 ::(2002) 3 Pat LJR 61 ::(2002) 2 UC 237 ::(2002) 3 Supreme 446 ::(2002) 3 JT 561 (SC) ::(2002) 4 JT 346 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madhya Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. C. Lahoti, D. M. Dharmadhikari , JJ

Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Condonation of delay - Delay of 39 days in filing second appeal - Reasons set out for delay were that the counsel failed to appear on account of some confusion in noting date of hearing and belated knowledge of judgment and decree on part of counsel - Counsel and Revenue Officer who filed affidavit in support of application for condonation not going to gain anything either by remaining absent or by assigning a false cause for non-appearance - In fact valuable rights of parties in an immovable property involved - On totality of facts held, sufficient cause for condoning delay made out - Liberal view ought to have been taken by High Court and instead of dismissing appeal High Court ought to have examined whether appeal raised substantive question of law. S. A. No. 426 of 1998, D/- 3-5-2000 (MP), Reversed. (Para 3)