JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Bajpai, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The respondent No. 6 is duly served.

2. This Civil Revision Application, Latur raises a question as to how the concept of sufficient cause in the matter of condonation of delay is to be interpreted and what should be the approach of the Court in exercising the discretionary power in this behalf.

3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein (original plaintiffs) had filed Regular Civil Suit No 56 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga of district Latur. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the suit property. The respondent No. 6 herein -- original defendant No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 1 Godawaribai and father of original plaintiffs Nos 2 to 5. The said suit was proceeded ex parte and was ultimately decreed on 14th October, 1986.

4. The original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 wanted to challenge the ex parte decree. There was delay of 104 days. The original defendants Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 1987 for condonation of delay. It was the case of the defendants that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document