The petitioner contended that the delay in preferring the appeal was due to non -convening of executive council and due to no availability of Vice -Chancellor .\u00a0 Delay was not accepted by the division bench of the High Court .Aggrieved by the order the university has filed the petition and contended that on merits would cause grave injury to the public institution. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Court held that\u00a0 a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay & the consideration does not depend on the status of the party, even so the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, routine explanation is not enough but it should be in the nature of indicating \u201csufficient cause\u201d to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation . Delay was not explained properly hence the appeal is dismissed . \u00a0\u00a0( Collector , Land Acquisition \u00a0\u00a0Anantnag\u00a0 v .Mst \u00a0Katiji \u00a0(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) , \u00a0( 1987 ) (2) SCC 107 distinguished) ( CA CA Nos \u00a0\u00a09488\u00ad 9489\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0 2019 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(SLP (Cl)\u00a0Nos.5581\u00ad5582\u00a0of\u00a02019), dt. 17.12.2019)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Limitation Act , 1963 .
\nS.5 : Extension of prescribed in certain cases – Condonation of delay- 916 days- A liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay \u2013 The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party , namely the Government or the pubic bodies \u2013 Condonation of delay is not automatic- No proper explanation was filed for condonation of delay \u2013 Condonation of delay was dismissed . [Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI of the Code Art. 226 ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-2mS","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9106"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9106\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9107,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9106\/revisions\/9107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}