The main legal point established is that the term 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 should be construed liberally to provide substantial justice, especially when the delay is not inordinate and mala fide.

ORDER :

Sanjay Agrawal, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred by Ashok Kumar Bhelwa under Section 388 (3) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1925') (wrongly mentioned as Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure), questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Durg, in Case No. 33/2016, by which, the appeal preferred by the Applicant under Section 388 (2) of the Act of 1925 has been dismissed while refusing to condone the delay in preferring the same. The parties to this Revision Petition shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the trial below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an application for obtaining the succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 has been made by the Applicant on account of the death of his wife, namely, Smt. Vijiya Bhelwa for obtaining the retiral dues and pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the said proceeding, an application has been made by the Applicant on 12.01.2010, whereby he has relinquished his claim with regard to the other funds and confined his claim only to the pensionary benefits and the same was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2011 and, in pursuance thereof, the succession certificate has been granted on 19.09.2011.

3. The aforesaid certificate is, however, revoked by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Durg, vide order dated, 12.05.2016 in MJC No. 5/2012 in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 383 of the Act, 1925 initiated by the Non-Applicant No. 2/The District Medical Officer, Rajnandgaon.

4. Being aggrieved with the revocation of the said certificate, the Applicant has preferred an appeal, as per the provisions prescribed under Section 388 (2) of the Act 1925 along with an application for condonation of its delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act of 1963'). It is stated by the Applicant in his application for condonation of delay that because of the advice of his original counsel that the appeal was required to be filed before the Hon'ble High Court, he approached the counsel of the High Court after obtaining the certified copy of the said order. However, he was adviced that an appeal was in fact required to be filed before the concerned District Judge and not before the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted further that due to the said ill-advice of his original counsel, the appeal could not be filed in time, however, there was no malafide intention behind it and prayed for condonation of delay of few days occurred bonafidely under the said circumstances.

5. Upon receiving the notice of the said appeal along with the said application, the Respondents have made their appearance, but have not filed any reply to the said application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellate Court, however, vide order impugned dated 07.07.2017 has refused to condone the delay by observing inter alia, that the necessary particulars regarding the whereabouts of the concerned advocates were neither disclosed in the application nor their affidavits were filed in support thereof. As a consequence, the appellate Court has rejected the said application and consequently the appeal was dismissed. This is the order, which has been impugned by way of this revision petition.

6. Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that while considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act of 1963, the appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal view, particularly, when there is no inordinate delay in filing the appeal. According to him, the said application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was duly supported by an affidavit and the same was not controverted by the Non-Applicants. Therefore, under such circumstances, the reasons so assigned ought to have been accepted by the Court below while adopting a lib