Court in Collector, Land Acquisition V/s Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 it was observed that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in the meaningful manner which subserves the end of justice. ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. Relying on the decision of Collector, Land Acquisition (supra) the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court has in Ram Kumar Goyal & Ors. V/s Bhuwan Singh Pradhan 2006 SCC OnLine Sikk 8 supported the same proposition while explaining every day’s delay. The Ld. Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank & Ano V/s Ashok Saw Mill (2009) 8 SCC 366 to support his contention that jurisdiction of D.R.T. under Sec. 17 is not confined only to the stage contemplated under Sec. 34 but also extends to post Sec. 13(4) situations and events. The Ld. Counsel also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arunoday Singh V/s Lee Anne Elton 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3285 to vouch for the position that when an apparently meritorious Appeal on the ground of limitation is pitted against deciding the appeal on merits, the Courts are entitled to take a liberal approach in deciding an application for condonation of delay.
