scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. In Mool Chandra (supra), it has been concluded by the Apex Court that no litigant stands to benefit in approaching the Courts belatedly; it is not the length of delay that is required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay; it is the cause for the delay, which has to be examined and if, it falls within the four corners of ‘sufficient cause’, irrespective of the length of delay, same deserves to be condoned, however, if the cause is insufficient, condonation should not be allowed. From the above, it has to be understood that what is more important is the cause shown by a party demanding delay to be condoned irrespective of the length of delay. In a particular case, even if, the delay is for long, but it is shown to the Court that the party was genuinely prevented from approaching it in time and within limitation, it shall have to be condoned. The conduct of the litigant plays a permanent role, while considering his plea on limitation. If the conduct is not explainable and the delay is inordinate, it is not to be condoned as any such approach is likely to prejudice the adversary, whose rights must have become crystallized by passage of time. That apart, the public policy of the State is with a purpose that a litigation must have a lifespan as it cannot be kept alive indefinitely, hence, the law of limitation. The said aspect is to be kept in view and while considering the question of limitation, a Court has to deal with the defence plea on delay condonation accordingly searching for the explanation offered towards the same. Any such liberal approach would be counterproductive. Even though, the right is not to be frustrated on technical grounds but a litigant, who
