Admit. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application in revision is directed against order dated 18.6.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 390/2007 by the Court of Sessions refusing to condone delay of 253 days occurred in preferring an application in revision by the applicants-Corporation to the said court for assailing the judgment and order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the trial court allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and thereby quashing demand notice for octroi issued by the applicants.

3. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants approached the Court of Sessions on the contention that delay had occurred due to (i) the counsel for the applicants-Corporation before the trial court having failed to intimate the date of judgment of appeal preferred by applicants in trial court, (ii) the Applicants Corporation having taken prompt steps after gathering knowledge about delivery of judgment when the respondents approached the department of applicants for refund of the amount deposited towards octroi deposits. It is submitted by Mr. Kasat that the Court of Sessions failed to appreciate that hardly anything was placed before said court for coming to the conclusion that the reason advanced by the applicants-Corporation was concocted. It is submitted that non condonation of delay in the matter would deprive the applicants-Corporation to test the merits of the judgment and order delivered by the trial court which in turn amongst other has an effect of causing huge loss to public exchequer.

4. During the pendency of the present proceeding, in order to substantiate the stand taken by the applicants-Corporation before the Court of Sessions, the applicants-Corporation filed the office note-sheet and the reply given by the attorney to the notice issued by the applicants-Corporation for not intimating the date of judgment to the Corporation.

5. After considering the matter stated in the said documents which are placed before this court and one of which were not available to the Court of Sessions while determining the question of existence of sufficient cause preventing the applicants to file application in revision within time or there was sufficient cause which prevented the applicants-Corporation in not preferring the proceeding within time, the applicants-Corporation have made out the sufficient cause for condoning the delay occurred in not preferring the application in revision before the Court of Sessions within time. It appears accordingly as the said correspondence amongst other duly indicates that the applicants-Corporation were not informed by their attorney regarding the date of judgment.

6. Having regard to the said aspect and the peculiar position of the applicants-Corporation i.e. the corporate body, it is difficult to perceive that without receiving the information about the date of judgment, the applicants-Corporation could have taken the proceeding early. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan .vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, amongst other reveals that while construing the words "sufficient cause" the court has to take the liberal approach. The observations of Apex Court in the said decision in paragraph no.13 are to the effect:

"13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a