The expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed too liberally, even when the party in default is the Government.

( 1 ) THIS application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation act, 1963 by the Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad is to condone the delay of 177 days in filing the C. C. C. A. Sr. No. 50292/71 against the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. P. No. 260/28 enhancing the compensation in respect of land comprised in S. No. 616 admeasuring Ac. 9-31 Guntas situated at Malkajgiri Taluk, East Hyderabad district from Rs. 500. 00 per Acre to Rs. 5. 00 per Sq. Yard.

( 2 ) WE are not concerned in this application with the respective merits of the parties relating to the value of the property acquired. The short point for our decision is whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal till 8. 12. 1971. Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Principal Government pleader contends that the delay of 177 days in the filing of the appeal was not due to any negligence on the part of the petitioner but due to the circumstances stated in the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed in support of this application. According to the counsel, the delay was only bona fide and the same should, therefore, be condoned. Sri Ramakrishna rao, the learned counsel for the respondent (land-owner) resists the claim of the petitioner contending inter alia that the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed in support of this application do not disclose valid and justifiable grounds for condoning the delay but, on the other hand, they disclose negligence on the part of the petitioner in not having preferred the appeal in time, and that in any event, every days delay has not been satisfactorily explained to warrant condonation of the inordinate delay of 177 days by this court.

( 3 ) FROM the allegations and counter allegations made in the affidavits and the counters, we may briefly state the relevant dates for the purpose of finding out whether the delay was really bona fide, and the same was doe to sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation act. The judgment of the lower court was pronounced on 27. 11. 1970. Application for certified copies of the decree and the judgment was filed by the Government pleader on behalf of the petitioner on 9. 12. 1970. on 25. 1. 1971, copy stamps were called for and on 28. 1. 1971, the requisite copy stamps were deposited. The certified copies of the decree and judgment were made ready by the lower court as early as 29. 3. 1971 and they had been received by the office of the pleader in the lower court on 6. 4. 1971. Though according to the additional affidavit a telephonic message was sent to the office of the petitioner asking to take delivery of the certified copies, no date is given as to when the telephonic message was received. There was N. G. O. s strike from 12. 4. 1971 to 6. 6. 1971. A letter sent by the government pleader reached the petitioner on 1. 7. 1971. He wrote a letter to the Collector on 13. 9. 1971 requesting him to accord sanction to prefer an appeal to the High court. On 5. 10. 1971, the petitioner sent a copy of the judgment to the Collector pressing for an early communication in that regard. The collector addressed the Secretary, Board of Revenue on 6. 10,. 1971 seeking accord of Sanction to prefer an appeal.

( 4 ) THE claimant had filed E. P. No. 11/71 in O. P. No. 260/68 in the lower court for executing the decree for Rs. 3,34,901. 91p. on 5. 2. 1971. Notice under section 82, Civil P. C. was issued on 24. 6. 1971. The government pleader took time for filing the counter and filed it on 21. 7. 1971. Time for depositing the decretal amount was sought for. The lower court accordingly granted three weeks time for the purpose and adjourned the E. P. to 18. 8. 1971. No amount was deposited by the said date. Further time was granted at the request of the Government Pleader till 31. 8. 1971, and the E. P. was adjourned to 10. 8. 1971. as the sum was not deposited, the execution court had to