( 1 ) APPLICATIONS (I. As. 4411/98 and 4413/98) under Order 37 Rule 3 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) have been filed by the two defendants separately for condonation of delay in filing applications for leave to defend.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF, a non-banking financial corporation, has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,50,645. 00 under summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code against the defendants, defendant No. 1 as the principal debtor and defendant No. 2 as its surety. The plaintiff had granted a loan of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs to finance certain plant and machinery to defendant No. 1. An agreement was executed between the parties on 29. 12. 1994 agreeing to repay the loan in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 1,10,834. 00 each. Some instalments were paid but balance remained unpaid, some cheques given towards the repayment were dishonoured. After serving notice of demand, the suit was filed for recovery of the balance amount. The defendants put in appearance. Summons for judgment was served and the defendants have filed applications for leave to defend after the prescribed period of 10 days. They seek condonation of delay of 34 days. The two applications contain identical pleas.

( 3 ) IT is adnutted by the defendants that their Counsel had accepted the summons for judgment in Court on 31. 3. 1998, however, copy of the application for judgment was supplied to him on 1. 4. 1998; he sent the same to the defendants in Bombay on 3. 4. 1998, received by the latter on 8. 4. 1998. Defendants sent replies on 10. 4. 1998 which were received by their Counsel in Delhi on 14. 4. 1998. The said Counsel prepared the replies on 17. 4. 1998 and st to the defendants in Bombay who received the same on 22. 4. 1998. The defendants sent again with suggestions for change/modifications to their Counsel on 27. 4. 1998 who received in Delhi on 30. 4. 1998. The Counsel after making requisite changes sent the applications on 4. 5. 1998 which were received by the defendants in Bombay on 8. 5. 1998. These applications were filed in this Court on 14. 5. 1998. Delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that defendants are placed in Bombay, and delay is due to finalisation of replies in consultation with their Counsel in Bombay and Delhi. The plaintiff in replies have alleged that sufficient cause for condonation of delay is not shown.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the defendants has contended that the defendants are located in Bombay and delay was caused in finalising the replies by their Counsel in Delhi and Bombay as some amendments had to be made in the draft replies prepared by their Counsel in Delhi and Bombay, the delay is unintentional and bona fide and in the circumstances sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay. Whereas learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that there is gross negligence, inaction and lack of diligence and bona fides on the part of the defendants and sufficient cause for condonation of delay is not made out. He has relied on Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. , AIR 1962 SC 361, DCM Financial Serviceslimited v. Khaitan Hostombe Spimels Ltd. , 1998 (47) DRJ 210=75 (1998) DLT 629, and Nirayu Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Lal, 1998 (46) DRJ 337=73 (1998) DLT 39.

( 5 ) RULE 3 (7) of Order 37 which provides for condonation of delay reads as under:

3. Procedure for the appearance of defendant.- (7) The Court or Judge may, for sufficient cause shown by the defendant, excuse the delay of the defendant in entering an appearance or in applying for leave to defend the suit.

( 6 ) PROVISION for condonation of delay on "sufficient cause" is also provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra) has laid down that two important considerations have to be borne in mind for construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act. First consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives rise to a right in fav