qk acand Aggaal NoJOO g 2008 _ Appellan‘rs 1. Rajkumar, aged about 35 years, 5/0. Lafe Ramprn‘md 2. Chho'fe Bai,’ aged abou‘t 34 years, Wd/o. Rnju, Bofh Cnsfe-Kewm', R/o. Jnbdqpam, (Sarkanda), Ci'ry, Tahsil and Disfric‘r- Biiuspur' (C.G.) Versus Shynmlal Kurmi, ngad abou‘r 7O years, S/o. Lofe Dasmm, R/o. Sarknndn' Seepa'r Road, Ci‘ry, Tahsil and Disfricf Biiaspur (C.6.) (Appeal under Section 100 of ‘rhe Code of Civil Procedure) SB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P. Sham,J. Pre3en1'i— Mr.6outam Khei-mpal and Mr.Avinash Sahu, counsel fog‘rhe qppglianfs. Mr.D.K.Swain_. counsel for the respondent ORDER (Passed on 21” April, 2010) . Chalienge in This appeai is 1'0 The judgment & decree damd 1.3.2008 passed by fhe 6’“ Addifiana! Disfrict Judge, Bilnspur, in Civil Appeal No.6 A/2007 _ dismissing ‘lhe appeal on The ground of limifa‘rion. 2. The presen‘r appeal is odmi‘rted on 'rhe following subs‘ronfial question of 3 low; “Whefher 1'he lower appellnfe Courf was juslified in dismissing fhe appeal No.6—A/2008 on the ground of delay?" 3V I have heard learned counsel for- the par-fies and perueed the judgmep'l' & decree impugned. S - . .-2i~ 4. Learned counsel for The appellanTs submiTs ThaT The appeal filed before The Cour? below has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 34 dny§oin filing 'rhe appeal. Appellant“ No.1 has filed ‘lhe affidnyi‘r along will. dowmenfs showing 1ha'l he was ill and was no'r in a posifion to file fhe appeal wiThin limiTaTion, buT The CourT below has noT considered The-Same - ‘ro be sufficien'r cause for filing The appeal after The period of-limi‘ro‘rion. 5. On The ofher hand, learned counsel for fhe respondent submii's fha’? 1he appeal was preferred before fhe lower appellafe Courf affer 34Adays: 03f The limiTaTion and in case of The appeal filed afTer The period of limiTaTion,’ i fhe appellan‘l' was under obliga‘rion to show SJfficien‘l cause, bu'l’ in fhe presen‘r case, The appellan‘r has ulterly failed fo show sufficient cause. in filing fhe appeal, Therefore, The Court below has righTly dismissed The appeal on the ground of limitation. 6. Learned counsel for The respondenT placed reliance inlThew maTTeUr‘of Ramlal and oThers v. Rewa Coalfields LTd.‘ in which The ApexmCoiirT has held ThaT in case of appeal filed afTer The period of limiTaTion, The appellanT is required To show sufficient cause for delay beTween The lasT“ day of» filing The appeal & The daTe on which The appeal was acTually filed. Learned counsel furTher placed reliance in The maTTer ’of 5fafe of Raiasfhan v. Nov BharaT ConsTrucTion Co. and aTher connecfed maTTm-z ' " in which The Apex CourT has held ThaT in case of appeal filed afTer-The period of limiTaTion The appellanT is under obligaTion To explain The delay of each day and in case of non-menTioning The daTe of commencement or ‘ TerminaTion of sTrike, applicaTion for condonaTion of delay being compleTely vague. 7. PresenT appeal was filed before The lower appellaTe CourT afTer 3_4 days of iTs limiTaTion. The appellanT was under obliga‘lrion To explain The delaytof each day in filing The appeal by showing sufficienT cause, buT The~CourTs are required To Take liberal View in considering sufficienT cause shown by \IR 1962 SC 361 :2005) 11 SCC‘. 197 “g, /\ me parties wifh a View to provide oppor‘tuniw of hearing To 11w parfies on merits and to decide The claim of 'rhe partias on meri‘rs. » . In the present case, cause shown by appellant No.1 that he was iii was not accepfed by *he Court below. In appears in The judgment impugned tho? The Cour-f below was no? libera! in considering 1‘he cause for non-filing 1he appeal within fime and has denied the parTies from providing opporfuni‘iy ' of addressing fhem on mar-H’s. . On due consideration, I am of the considered view that the Court below was n01 justified in dismissing The appeai on fhe ground of delay. _ Consequem'ly, quesiion of law formulafed for decision-of this appeai is decided as negative and as a result of decision on ‘the question of iaw‘ v formulated for decision of this appeal, *he appeal is allowed. Judgmen‘rdi decree impugned is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back'to the 6*” , " Addifional Disfric'r Judge, Biiaspur for providing oppori'uniiy of hearing fa 'rhe par‘ries and deciding The appeal afresh on merifs. The parfies are directed To remain presen'i' before the lower appellate Court on 16.6.2010 for further hearing of the appeal. No order as to costs. 10. Decree be drown up accordingiy. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Bl—