JUDGMENT : After hearing both the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration of this Court: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein in R.A.No.59/2010 only on the ground of limitation without properly appreciating the materials on record as the said application was not virtually contested by the other side? 2. Both the counsels are heard on the above said substantial question of law. The records disclose that respondent No.1-Balawwa has filed a suit against 14 defendants in O.S.No.11/2007 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The present appellant was arrayed as defendant No.3, who also appeared before the Court through her counsel. When the case was posted for evidence, the plaintiff has filed a memo on 18.08.2008 seeking for dismissal of the suit against all the defendants. However, as defendant Nos.2 and 14 have filed their counter claims against the plaintiff’s claim, the Court proceeded with the case and decreed the counter claims so far as the defendant Nos.2 and 14 are concerned, granting 1/28th share to defendant No.2 and 1/4th share in favour of defendant No.14, however, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. The said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was called in question by the appellant herein before the II Fast Track Court, Koppal in R.A.No.59/2010 stating that the trial Court has not properly adjudicated the rights of all the parties and not transposed defendant Nos.2 and 14 as plaintiffs as against other defendants and did not found out any rights of the other defendants involved in that particular case along with other grounds urged before the First Appellate Court. As there was some delay in preferring the first appeal, the appellant also moved the Court with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The First Appellate Court without going into the merits of the case has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay. 4. On careful perusal of the order passed by the First Appellate Court which has mainly concentrated with regard to the grounds urged in the application for condonation of delay, without any reference to the merits of the case as claimed by the appellant before the Appellant Court. 4. On careful perusal of the order passed by the First Appellate Court which has mainly concentrated with regard to the grounds urged in the application for condonation of delay, without any reference to the merits of the case as claimed by the appellant before the Appellant Court. The appellant has also submitted that, he has got very good case on merits, therefore the delay should not come in the way of the Courts to administer substantive justice between the parties. It appears that, this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court apart from the other grounds urged for condonation of delay. 5. The order of the First Appellate Court also discloses that, the said application filed by the appellant was not seriously contested by the other side. At paragraph No.8 the Court observed that, though the appellant examined herself as PW.1 and subjected to cross-examination, but the respondents have not led any evidence at all. It is the case of the appellant that, on 06.11.2008 the trial Court has delivered the judgment granting relief to defendant Nos.2 and 14, but the Court has dismissed the suit so far as the plaintiff is concerned by virtue of the memo filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is every possibility of defendants thinking that two suits against them have already been dismissed and in the absence of any transposition of other defendants who have claimed counter claims as plaintiffs, there cannot be any decree in favour of them. Perhaps, thinking in that line, the appellant might not have approached her counsel in this regard in order to take the certified copy of the said judgment immediately after 06.11.2008. Of course there is some little delay in filing the application for certified copy of the order as it is stated in the affidavit filed by PW.1 that, she came to know about the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 14 when she received the notice in the FDP proceedings on 25.10.2010, but she filed an application for certified copy on 30.11.2010. This has been seriously taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court because even after the knowledge of the decree, the application has not applied within time to secure the certified copy of the judgment and decree. This has been seriously taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court because even after the knowledge of the decree, the application has not applied within time to secure the certified copy of the judgment and decree. Of course, there is no serious explanation as to why the application was not filed immediately after 25.10.2010. It goes without saying that, after receiving the notice in FDP proceedings the party might have approached the Court itself to ascertain whether any such decree has passed or not and thereafter, approaching the advocate for to get the certified copy it invariably takes some time. It is not that inordinate delay has been occurred in taking the certified copy. 6. After taking the certified copy, the appeal was filed within time on 08.12.2010 itself. Whenever the Courts are called upon to consider the limitation application, a broad view has to be taken, considering all the surrounding circumstances, whether the appellant has got any substantive rights to agitate before the Courts and without there being following of principles of natural justice, the rights have been curtailed. Further, added to that, it should be borne in mind always that, if there is any inordinate delay and there is any deliberate action on the part of a person who files the application the Court can refuse to condone such delay. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Court has to visualize the rights of the parties and to some extent, the merits of the case for the purpose of considering the application for condonation of delay. It may not be invariably be said that the delay application has to be rejected, merely because some technicalities are there in taking the certified copy or filing the appeal before the Court. It is well known principle of law that, limitation application normally should be considered with all magnanimity, unless the Court finds a gross deliberate inaction on the pat of the parties. 7. In this background, if I see in this particular case, the Appellate Court would have looked into the judgment of the trial Court with reference to dismissal of the suit against all the defendants and the trial Court has not transposed the defendants who have actually sought counter claim, in order to provide an opportunity to other defendants. 7. In this background, if I see in this particular case, the Appellate Court would have looked into the judgment of the trial Court with reference to dismissal of the suit against all the defendants and the trial Court has not transposed the defendants who have actually sought counter claim, in order to provide an opportunity to other defendants. Whether their rights going to be affected by means of any decree, that may be passed in favour of the defendants, who have filed counter claim was also not looked into by the trial Court. These are all the legal aspects ought to have been seen by the appellate Court. Even while considering the limitation application, if the Court is of the opinion that, a substantive mis-carriage of justice would going to occur in dismissing the limitation application, in such circumstances, the delay must be considered with all magnanimity in order to advance substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, in my opinion, in this particular case, though there is some inaction on the part of the appellant in taking certified copy and filing the appeal in a delayed manner, it cannot be said that, it is so inordinate delay and there is inaction deliberately on the part of the appellant so as to curb the appellant from preferring the appeal. Hence, in my opinion, the appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the above said aspects and not condoning the delay, consequentially, dismissing the appeal on that ground. 8. Hence, the substantial question of law requires to be answered in the affirmative and accordingly, answered. Hence, the following order of is passed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2011 passed by the FTC-II, Koppal in R.A.No.59/2010 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the appellant in the said case for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. The matter stands remitted to the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.59/2010 with a direction to dispose of the said appeal on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties on merits.