Judgment :- (PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated made in I.A. No.170/2001 in A.S.S.R.No.2563/2001, dated 23.10.2002, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari.) This revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Nagercoil made in I.A.No.170/2001 in A.S.S.R.No.2563/2001, dated 23.10.2002, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and declining to condone the delay of 458 days in filing the Appeal. The Defendant/Appellant is the Revision Petitioner. 2.Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring that the Plaint Schedule Property – lane of 6ft, which starts from the Middle Street of Azhagiyapandipuram and ends with the Plaintiff's property situated in R.S.No.611/90, is exclusively possessed, used and enjoyed by the Plaintiff; and for Permanent Injunction restraining the first Defendant from putting up any construction in the lane portion and also for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant 2 and 3 to remove the encroachment made by the first Defendant and to restore the lane. 3.The first Defendant has entered appearance and filed elaborate Written Statement alleging that only the first Defendant has the right over the portion described in the Plaint Schedule Property. Case of the first Defendant is that the Plaintiff never had exclusive right over the Suit Property and that only the Plaintiff has closed the lane and prevented the first Defendant from using the lane and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for in the Plaint. Further case of the first Defendant is that the lane is enjoyed both by the Plaintiff and himself and the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right over the same. For the non-appearance of the first Defendant, the suit was decreed exparte on 25.04.2000. 4.The first Defendant applied for certified copy of the Judgment and obtained the same. But the Appeal was filed only on 12.10.2001, with a delay of 458 days. I.A.No.170/ 2001 in A.S.S.R.No.2563/2001 was filed by the first Defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. In the supporting affidavit, it is alleged that the first Defendant was in bed rest from 15.05.2000 to 05.10.2001 as per the advice of the Doctors, since he was affected by Paralysis disease. He is said to be taking treatment from one Dr.Ravindran in Kottar and the delay in filing the Appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. In the supporting affidavit, it is alleged that the first Defendant was in bed rest from 15.05.2000 to 05.10.2001 as per the advice of the Doctors, since he was affected by Paralysis disease. He is said to be taking treatment from one Dr.Ravindran in Kottar and the delay in filing the Appeal is neither wilful nor wanton. The first Defendant prayed to condone the delay stating that he has got a good case in the Appeal on merits and sought for admission of the Appeal and the condoning of delay in filing the Appeal. 5.The application was resisted by the Plaintiff contending that the first Defendant is a resident of Azhagiapandipuram and that Doctors are available in that area and that the reason stated by the first Defendant that he went to Kottar for treatment is unacceptable. It is alleged that the Medical Certificate produced by the first Defendant has been obtained only to secure condonation of long delay in filing the Appeal. In the Counter Statement, it is further alleged that the first Defendant had obtained the Certificate Copy even on 20.06.2000 and that he has deliberately delayed the filing of the Appeal. The first Defendant has filed the Appeal only after he has received the notice in the Execution Proceedings and he has also entered appearance through his Advocate in the Execution Proceedings and the Appeal filed thereafter cannot be admitted. Since the inordinate delay is not properly explained, the delay cannot be condoned. 6.The learned District Judge has dismissed the Petition finding that no document has been produced showing that he had taken medical treatment. It was further held that the first Defendant having filed the Copy Application and having obtained certified copy of the Judgment, had not chosen to file the Appeal in time and that the inordinate delay had not been properly explained. The Appellate Court was also of the view that the number of days of delay had been wrongly stated as 515 days instead of 458 days. Aggrieved over the dismissal of I.A.No.170/2001, the first Defendant has preferred this revision. 7.Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for te Revision Petitioner has submitted that the first Defendant suffered from Paralysis disease and that he was taking treatment from 15.05.2000, which was not properly appreciated by the lower Court. Aggrieved over the dismissal of I.A.No.170/2001, the first Defendant has preferred this revision. 7.Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for te Revision Petitioner has submitted that the first Defendant suffered from Paralysis disease and that he was taking treatment from 15.05.2000, which was not properly appreciated by the lower Court. It is further submitted that the lower Court erred in saying that the medical bills, prescription and the nature of treatment were not produced. It is submitted that if the Judgment of the lower Court remains unchallenged, it would cause serious prejudice to the first Defendant. 8.Placing reliance upon 2002 (1) CTC 769 [Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao] the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction and that the first Defendant ought to have been given an opportunity to prefer the Appeal. 9.Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that the substantial delay has not been satisfactorily explained. It is further submitted that when no other material was produced, other than the Medical Certificate, the Court below has rightly declined to condone the inordinate delay. It is further submitted that having obtained the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree, the first Defendant has deliberately delayed the filing of the Appeal and the Appeal filed, after entering appearance in the Execution Petition, cannot be admitted. 10.The only point that arises for consideration is :- in refusing to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, whether there is proper exercise of discretion, calling for interference ? 11.The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether the explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not would be dependent upon the facts of each case. The Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the explanation shown and reject the Petition. This is all the more so, when the Court is considering the delay in filing the Appeal in the first Appellate Court. 12.Certain dates are relevant to be noted: - Date of Judgment ..... 25.04.2000 Certified Copy applied ..... 26.04.2000 Certified copy delivered on ..... 20.06.2000 Appeal ought to have been filed on ..... 11.07.2000 But Appeal filed ..... This is all the more so, when the Court is considering the delay in filing the Appeal in the first Appellate Court. 12.Certain dates are relevant to be noted: - Date of Judgment ..... 25.04.2000 Certified Copy applied ..... 26.04.2000 Certified copy delivered on ..... 20.06.2000 Appeal ought to have been filed on ..... 11.07.2000 But Appeal filed ..... 20.07.2000 Illness (as per Medical Certificate) ..... 15.05.2000 to 05.10.2001 Thus there is a delay of 458 days. The Revision Petitioner/D1 has stated that he was severely affected by Paralysis disease and he was taking treatment in Kottar with one Dr.Ravindran and the Petitioner was advised bed rest from 15.05.2000 to 05.10.2001. To substantiate his claim, the first Defendant has produced the Medical Certificate issued by the said Doctor on 05.10.2001. The Medical Certificate clearly shows that the Revision Petitioner was suffering from Paralysis disease and was in the hospital from 15.05.2000 and was advised bed rest. The Paralysis disease is such a disease that a person might be immobilized and incapacitated to perform the daily routine and lead a normal life. Medical Certificate produced by the Revision Petitioner was discarded on the trivial ground that the Certificate had been obtained only on 05.10.2001. The lower Court also faulted the Revision Petitioner for not producing the materials showing the nature of treatment, medical bills and prescription etc. From the Medical Certificate, it is clear that the Revision Petitioner was suffering from Paralysis Disease. The Revision Petitioner is aged about 65 years. The age factor probablises such sickness. Only at the time of filing the Appeal, the Revision Petitioner would have had the necessity to obtain the Medical Certificate for the purpose of production before the Court, offering explanation for the delay in filing the Appeal. That cannot be the reason to disbelieve the correctness and Medical Certificate produced. 13. While considering the delay in filing the Appeal, the Court has also incidentally to look into the case of the rival parties. Suit Property relates to the lane. Plaintiff claims exclusive right of the pathway. The Suit Property is said to be poramboke. It is stated that the Plaintiff has been directed to remove the encroachment in R.S.No.611/1980. The suit has been decreed, declaring the Plaintiff's exclusive right. Suit Property relates to the lane. Plaintiff claims exclusive right of the pathway. The Suit Property is said to be poramboke. It is stated that the Plaintiff has been directed to remove the encroachment in R.S.No.611/1980. The suit has been decreed, declaring the Plaintiff's exclusive right. In the Written Statement, the Defendant has claimed that the suit land is also used by the first Defendant and that the Plaintiff has been directed to remove the encroachment. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of both parties, this Court is of the view that an opportunity is to be given to the Defendant to challenge the findings of the trial Court, lest unchallenged findings and Decree might cause serious prejudice to the first Defendant. 14. Generally, delay in preferring the Appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. The party claiming negligence must prove that he was reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter. The suit was decreed on 25.04.2000. Immediately thereafter, on 28.04.2000, the first Defendant has applied for and obtained certified copy of the Judgment and Decree through his counsel. On 07.06.2000, the Revision Petitioner had deposited the Stamp Papers and the certified copy of the Judgment was filed on 20.06.2000. By applying for the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree, the Revision Petitioner has shown his bonafide and diligence in prosecuting the proceedings. But for the illness, he might have taken immediate steps in filing the Appeal. When there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the Revision Petitioner, the first Appellate Court erred in declining to condone the delay. 15. It is not the length of the delay, but whether the delay is satisfactorily explained is the point to be taken note of. In 1998 (7) SCC 123 [N.Balakrishnan V. M.Krishnamurthy] there was a delay of 883 days in filing the application for setting aside the order of the trial Court and the High Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Reversing the order of the High Court, in the above decision, the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. Reversing the order of the High Court, in the above decision, the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has laid down the law, observing thus: - "9.Appellant's conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. What he did in defending the suit was not very much far from what a litigant would broadly do. Of course, it maybe said that he should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 10.It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other case delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court........ 12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. 12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jainand Kuntal Kumari, 1969(1)SCR 1006 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, 1972 (1) SCC 366 . 13.It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time; then the Court should lean against acceptance of explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses." 16. In 2005 (2) CTC 766 [Mohammed Aslam and others Vs. C.N.A.Gowdhaman] the Division Bench of this Court has held: "Equally, we are conscious of the fact that the length of delay is no matter, and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes, the delay of shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation therefor is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there may be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack the malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should not lean towards acceptance of the explanation. If the explanation does not smack the malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should not lean towards acceptance of the explanation. We are also aware that refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor form putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. Now, even the higher Court of this land have interpreted that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice." 17.The Revision Petitioner/D-1 has properly explained the delay. The First Appellate Court was not right in discarding the Medical Certificate produced by the Revision Petitioner. In declining to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, there is no proper exercise of discretion. The reasons of the First Appellate Court are unreasonable, causing serious prejudice to the Revision Petitioner/First Defendant. Setting aside the impugned Order, this revision is to be allowed. 18.For the foregoing reasons, this revision is allowed, setting aside order of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari, dated 23.10.2002 made in I.A. No.170/2001 in A.S.S.R.No.2563/2001. The delay in filing the appeal would be condoned on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the First Respondent/Plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the District Court, Kanyakumari. The learned District Judge is directed to post the matter in the open Court immediately on receipt of copy of this order to enable the parties to know about the receipt of copy of this order and to enable the revision Petitioner to comply with the order. On payment of such cost, and on filing of necessary Memo, the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari is directed to take the appeal on file, if otherwise in order. In case of non-compliance of the conditional order, the order made by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.170/2001 shall hold good. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Revision.