The law of limitation must be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes, and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.

Joytosh Banerjee, J.

1. This hearing arises out of an application (C.A.N. No. 4927/2002) filed by the legal representatives of the sole defendant/appellant who were substituted in place of deceased defendant/appellant by an order dated 14.2.2000, praying for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the second appeal which was dismissed for default.

2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant application are as follows:-

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction which was registered as T.S. No. 2621/79 before the 3rd Court of Munsif at Sealdah. The learned Trial Court by its judgment dated 23.4.89 decreed the suit on contest and the defendant/appellant was directed to deliver khas possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent within 60 days from the date of judgment. Being aggrieved by such order, the defendant went in appeal being T.A. No. 16/90 before the Assistant District Judge, Sealdah, which court by the judgment dated 19.12.90 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No. 261/79. Thereafter the sole defendant approached this court through the second appeal being S.A. No.106/92 (S.A.T. 1252/91) which was admitted by an order dated 19.8.91. Ultimately when the second appeal was ready for hearing it came before me for hearing when I had necessary determination to take up second appeal. The appellant was found absent on many occasions, so the second appeal was ultimately dismissed for default by an order dated 22.8.2001. Thereafter the substituted appellants as petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the appeal after recalling the order dated 22nd August, 2001, on 10th of June, 2002 (C.A.N. No. 4726/2002) on the same day, the petitioners also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of about 8 months and 19 days for reasons stated in the application.

3. So the only point for my consideration here is whether the petitioners had sufficient cause for not filing the application for restoration within the period of limitation.

4. Regarding the inordinate delay in filing the application for restoration, the petitioners case is that their advocate Mr. Md. Yasin Ali and his registered clerk and also their advocate on record Ms. Mita Biswas missed the matter in the list and as a result of the same the learned Advocates failed to appear when the matter was called on for hearing resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. It is also alleged that with a view to ascertain the condition of the appeal and to ascertain whether there was anything required to be done by the petitioner in connection with the appeal, the petitioner No. 4 Sri Ajit Paul came to the chamber of the learned Advocate appearing in the matter in the 2nd week of May, 2002 whereupon the learned Advocate directed his clerk to file an Application for inspection of the records of the case and an application for Inspection was filed on 17th of May, 2002 for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioners came to know from Mr. Md. Yasin Ali, learned Advocate that the appeal had been dismissed for default by an order dated 22nd August, 2001. The aforesaid allegations have been made through paras 9, 10, 15 and 16 of the petition. The question therefore is whether the aforesaid circumstances as alleged in the petition constitute sufficient cause ? It is true that the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction. But at the same time, it is also true that the period of limitation would not be extended on the basis of a mere application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the sufficiency of the cause, the court is required to look into all the facts of the case. The question has to be decided on the facts and circumstances existing in a particular case. No doubt, the consideration of existence of sufficient cause is d