^•^^'"'SSS^'s'SS^Sg B5S:%BniHS%HSaS'®ggBSKBSi8SB":i!'(SiBSB)MISWg8*^BBSBiN ^:'?is<aiSgg!S^;gS9?:8JSSff!BIBWB!HI*ISB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A.No. 316/2005 Singte Bench: Hon'bie Shri Di'iip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Defendant No. 1 Respondent Piaintlff Respondents Ishrar Hussain, Aged 70 years, S/o Farjan Hussain, R/o. Village- Gopalpur, Tahsii - Katghora, District-Korba (CG) Versus Mst. Budhwari Bai, Aged-48 years, W/o. Awadhram, R/o. Village-Mudpar, Tahsil- Katghora, District-Korba(CG) Mst. Baredl Bai, Aged-43 years, D/o. Narayan, R/o. Chorbhatti, Tahsii- Katghora, District-Korba (CG) Mst. Bhag Bai, Aged-39 years, D/o. Narayan, R/o. Khetrmora, Jail Ke pass, Korba, Distt. Korba State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Coilector, Korba, District-Korba (CG) Present:- Radheshyam Gupta, learned counsei for the appeliant. Ashok Swarnkar, learned counse! for the respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 5in Apri!, 2007) Leamed counsel for the appeliant does not press M.C.P. No. 957/2007 for stay and aiso I.A. No. 3652/2006 for out of turn listing the case which are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that this S.A may be heard finailytoday. Prayer is not opposed. 3. The appeal is heard finaliy today. 4. Brief facts are that in civil suit No. 16-A/2001, the Civi! Judge Cl^s-1, Katghora vide judgment dated 24.10.2003 passed a decree in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein/plaintiff for declaration of title and vacant posssssion of the suit lands against the appeliant herein/defendant No.1. Copy of the judgment and decree was applied for by the counsel on :?.;. ?;i.S^;.'.i'S'ii ¥^T;E":iiS;1.?'»i"iEBERWKB ^ ^ 6.11.2003 and received on 5.12.2005. The appellant/defendant No. 1 preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Korba on 9.8.2004 along with an appiication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay. it was submitted that on 25.11.2003, the appeltant had gone to his relatives' house in Rewa where he had falien ili due to virai Hepatitis and PUO. !n support of the apptieation, the appellant had fiied the medica! certificate of Dr. Debashish Chattsrjee stating that the appeilant was undergoing treatment for viral Hepatitis and PUO from 5.12.2003 to 12.7.2004. 5. The respondent No. 1 herein/plaintiff Budhwari Bai and others opposed the application but did not file any affidavit or document to show that the contentions raised by the appellant in; the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not true. 6. The First Appeltate Court observed that the appeilant did not fiie any medical certificate in support of his appiication and taking a highly technical view dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. 7. The following substantial question of iaw was framed in this appeal. 'Vtfhether the lower Appetlate Court was not justified In dismissing the appiication filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.?" 8. It is settled law that the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-iimit fixed for approaching the Court in different situattons is not because on the expiry of such time a bad eause would transform inte> a good cause. In Ram Nath Sao (@>. Ram Nath Sahu & Ors Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors 2002 SAR (Civil) 302 Supreme Court it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive liberal canstruction so as to advance substantial justice. in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party acceptance of explanation given by the appelfant in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be the ruls and reiusal an exception. It has also to be borne in mind that ths appellant would not r gain by flling the appeal late deliberateiy. The view taken by the First AppelSate Court is clearly erroneous for two reasons. Firstly, an apptication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not only supported by an affidavit but was also supported by the medical certificate of Dr. Debashish Chaterjee which had not been rebutted by the respondents. This fact was overlooked by the learned Court below. The respondents had piaced no material before the First Appellate Court.to show that the grounds raised by the appellant in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were false or maiafide. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the First Appellate Court is co.nfrary to iaw. A iiberal and pragmatic view ought to have been taken by the First Appellate Court in order to advance substantial justice between the parties. 9. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the substantial question of iaw is answered in the affirmative. The impugned order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Korba in civil appea! No. 64A/2004 is set aside. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appetlant is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The District Judge Korba shall now hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Korba on 13.6.2007. No further notice shall be necessary. In view of the above fact, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge