ORDER : 1. This civil application has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 741 days in filing the captioned First Appeal. 2. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the dealing advocate had conveyed to the appellant regarding pronouncement of judgment and amount of compensation allowed on 30.03.2018. The appellant replied to his dealing advocate regarding filing of appeal against the order of tribunal. The appellant went to the office of dealing advocate on 24.05.2018 to sign the vakalatnama for filing first appeal as the advocate was not available due to summer vacation. The appellant again went to the office of dealing advocate on 18.06.2018. Subsequently dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies will be sent to the High Court advocate and will update regarding the status of appeal. That the appellant went to the office of dealing advocate on 24.04.2019 to know the status of the appeal filed before the High Court. The dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies are already sent to the High Court advocate and will confirm the status of appeal shortly. The appellant again contact the dealing advocate after period of few months to know the status of first appeal on 24.10.2019. The dealing advocate confirmed that the certified copies sent to the High Court advocate was misplaced or lost in transaction and is not found in the High Court advocate’s office presently. That the applicant personally applied for certified copies on 16.11.2019 and the certified copies were received from the court on 30.11.2019. The applicant personally sent the certified copies to the High Court advocate on 18.12.2019. The High Court advocate confirmed receipt of certified copies on 20.12.2019. Subsequently the High Court raised requirement of further documentary evidence to draft appeal. That the applicant contacted the dealing advocate on 30.12.2019 for further documentary evidence as required by the High Court advocate. The applicant sent the requisite documents on 06.02.2020. Subsequently the High Court advocate drafted the application for condonation of delay and sent for affidavit on 06.03.2020. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the delay of 741 days has been caused in preferring the captioned appeal. 3. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840 . In view of the aforesaid circumstances the delay of 741 days has been caused in preferring the captioned appeal. 3. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840 . It is submitted that the cause for delay should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to forego the interest and the consequential statutory benefits during the delayed period and thus prayed for liberal consideration of the sufficient cause. 4. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :- “3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "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. 4. 3. "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. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 5. Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the present application is allowed and the delay of 741 days in filing the captioned First Appeal is condoned, with a condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.