RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU & ORS. versus GOBARADHAN SAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 27-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM NATH SAO@ RAM NATH SAHU & ORS. 
v. 
GOBARADHAN SAO AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Limitation Act ,1963: Section 5 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 22 Rule 9 
Expression,-'Sufficient cause '-Interpretation of-Should receive liberal 
construction so as to advance justice when there is no inaction, negligence or 
A 
B 
c 
lack of bona fide on the part of party-Whether explanation furnished by 
·party constitutes 'sufficient cause' depends on facts of each case-On facts 
held rejection of prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement D 
by High Court held not justified. 
During hearing of appeal, one of the appellants informed his counsel 
that some of the appellants had expired. The counsel instructed him to obtain 
and file vakalatnama from legal representatives of the deceased persons for 
filing substitution application. Applications were filed by appellants, who were E 
illiterate and rustic villagers, for substitution of heirs and for setting aside 
abatement. There was delay in these three applications for 130 days, 5 years 
and 3 years respectively. A single Judge of the Patna High Court refused the 
prayer for condonation of delay setting aside the abatement on the ground 
that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing the 
application to set aside abatement. The Division Bench of the High Court F 
upheld the order passed by the single Judge. 
In appeal to.this Court, it was contended on behalf of appellants that. 
(i) as the appellants, who were rustic and illiterate villagers, belonged to 
different families, different villages within different police stations and in the 
absence of anything to show that the delay was mala fide, intentional or any G 
dilatory tactics was adopted, the same should have been condoned and 
abatement set aside; and (ii) the expression 'sufficient cause' within lhe 
meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 22 Rule 9 of the 
·Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should receive a libe.ral construction so as to 
77 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona.fide 
is imputable to a party. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned orders passed by 
the High Court, the Court 
B 
HELD: The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 
S of the Limitation Act, or order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so 
as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of 
bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular 'case whether explanation 
furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependent upon 
C facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or 
rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one 
thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding 
fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over 
jubiliation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be 
D the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or 
want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, 
while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that 
by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued 
to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in 
a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical 
E view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when 
stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the 
case, cs.using enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom 
the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right 
of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, 
F courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going 
to pass upon the parties either way. [85-A-E] 
2. In the instant case the Division Bench of the High Court was not 
justified in upholding the order passed by the Single Judge whereby prayers 
for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement were refused. 
G Accordingly the delay in filing the petition for setting aside abatement is 
condoned, abatement is set aside and pray

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.