The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider 'sufficient cause' for seeking condonation of delay, the bonafide nature of the explanation, and the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice.

JUDGMENT

Prithviraj K.Chavan, J -Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 29.9.2017 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Goa in Misc. Civil Application No.12/2017/Condone and Misc.Appln.No. Unregistered/Stay/2017, by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay dated 7.6.2017 seeking condonation of delay of 407 days in filing an appeal under Section 90 read with Section 114 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against an order dated 9.5.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, South Goa, Margao, in Case No.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent, who is the original disputant, had raised a dispute under Section 83 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against the petitioner, which was being considered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, South Goa, Margao, and was registered as case no.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002. Hearing of the said matter was concluded on 17.02.2016. The petitioner was personally present on that date. The Assistant Registrar thereafter fixed the said case for orders by stating that it would be communicated to the parties. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar did not communicate the said order to the petitioner. When the petitioner had been to the office of the Assistant Registrar in connection with another case bearing no.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2003, he learnt about disposal of ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002. He came to know that the Assistant Registrar had disposed of Case No. ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002 on 9.5.2016. The petitioner thereafter applied for certified copy on 20.3.2017.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2016 passed in Case No.ARCS/SZ/SCHS/SAL/ABN-1/2002, approached the learned Tribunal with an appeal under Section 90 read with Section 114 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. Though, the petitioner was not communicated with the said order, out of an abundant caution, he filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 407 days. However, the learned Tribunal, after considering the application and reply filed by the respondent, by the impugned order rejected the application.

5. Shri Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in law as well as in facts to appreciate that the application seeking condonation of delay was essentially on the ground that the judgment and order dated 9.5.2016 was not communicated to the petitioner. The respondent, who appears in person, though agrees that there is no record indicating the communication of the said order to the petitioner yet, he submits that the petitioner had notice and knowledge of the impugned order dated 9.5.2016. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had made out, "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay. The learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the explanation of the petitioner and merely because the respondent has contended that the petitioner had knowledge of the said order, would not ifso-facto mean that the petitioner was negligent. He, therefore, prays for quashing the impugned order dated 29.9.2017.

6. It is a settled principles of law laid down by a catena of decisions that while entertaining an application for condonation of delay, what is required to be seen is, "sufficient cause" for not approaching the Court within time. The object of the law of Limitation is to ensure that the litigant is diligent in seeking his remedies in a Court of law. It is equally important that "sufficient cause" is to be seen in the context of the factual matrix of a particular case and would depend mostly on the bonafide nature of the explanation. From the record, it can be said that the