server came to him. As the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was barred by time, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. It was then stated in the application that the said application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was dismissed by the trial court on 19.04.2010. The counsel engaged by the appellant did not appear in the matter and another counsel appeared in the matter at the camp Court, who did not inform the appellant about the order dated 19.04.2010 and even the counsel engaged by him also did not inform him about the said order. It is claimed that again when the execution proceedings were started and the process server of the executing court visited the appellant, in the first week of February, 2012, he came to know about the dismissal of application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC. Thereafter certified copies were obtained and counsel was contacted at Jodhpur, who instructed him to bring certain more documents and record and after collecting the same the appeal was prepared and filed. Ultimately, it was claimed in the application that the delay in filing the appeal had occurred unintentionally and there is sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted in the application that when technical/procedural irregularities and substantial justice are pitted out against each other, the cause of later has to be sustained and as the appellant has a very good case on merits, the same may not be thrown out for 'short' and unintentional delay in filing the appeal.
