The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of the 'sufficient cause' requirement under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice in condoning the delay in filing legal applications.

1. Vide order dated 17th September, 1998, the trial court dismissed theapplication under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleadment of legal heirs of the plaintiff and other applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read withOrder 22 Rule 4(5) and Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing theabove-said application and under OrderIRule 10 CPC moved by applicant NadirShah. Adumbrated in brief, the factsof the case are these. Secunder Shah expired on 7th February, 1994, leaving behind him, his wife,Gulshan Ara Begum, three daughters, Shamshad Sultana, Munwar Sultana and Tajbar Sultana and oneson, Nadir Shah. According to the plaintiffs/applicants, the right to suesurvived in their favour and therefore, they moved the above-said applicationson April, 1996. There was a delay of 739 days in filing the application underOrder 22 Rule 3.

2. The appellants have explained the delay as follows. Secunder Shahpurchased the suit property for the benefit of his family including himself. The respondent/defendant illegally occupied the above-mentioned property. In order to recover the possession of the property from the said trespassers, a suit for recovery of possession was filed. Secunder Shah was a resident ofNorth Lakhimpur, Assam. He was unable to personally look after his interest inthe property, therefore, he handed over the original title deed and otherdocuments to Aimil Shah, his son-in-law with the instructions to proceed with the above-said litigation and look after his interest in the suit property. Nadir Shah, his son, due to his pre-occupation in his business in Assam alsorequested Aimil Shah to proceed with the above-said litigation on behalf of his father-in-law. Initially, the suit was filed before the Honble High Court.

Thereafter, due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court,it was transferred to the District Court. Since the case was dragging for morethan 10 years, therefore, Aimil Shah lost track of the above litigation.Secunder Shah gave Power of Attorney dated 6th January, 1994, whereby hegranted authority to Aimil Shah to prosecute the above-said matter and deposefacts on his behalf before the Court.However, Aimil Shah misplaced the above-said power of attorney dated 6th January, 1994. With the bona fide intention ofnot to display the above-said matter, another Power of Attorney dated 30thAugust, 1995 was prepared. In the meantime, original Power of Attorney dated 6th January, 1994 was traced out but due to inadvertence power of attorney dated30th August, 1995 was filed before this court at the time of recording of evidence. It is also explained that Secunder Shah suffered burn injuries and ultimately succumbed to those on 7th February, 1994.

3. Shamshad Sultana, daughter of Secunder Shah was suffering from kidneydisease and her both kidneys were not functioning. She was in Delhi along withher mother for her treatment in Ganga RamHospital. The doctors had advised tokeep her away from any kind of tension and mental pain. The certificate issuedby the doctors was annexed with the application. Nadir Shah with the benevolentintention to not to cause any pain to her sister, Shamshad Sultana and for herwelfare had quiet funeral of his father.He did not inform about the death ofhis father to Aimil Shah with the bona fide intention that he might inform thedeath of their father to Shamshad Sultana and Gulshan Ara his sister and motherrespectively, who would not be able to tolerate the shock and pain as Aimil Shahwas looking after Shamshad Sultana staying in Delhi for continuoustreatment/dialysis. Neither Aimil Shah nor his wife, Munwar Sultana attendedthe funeral of Secunder Shah.

4. Again, during the settlement talks for the sale of the case propertybetween Aimil Shah and defendant it was agreed that on the next date of hearing,Secunder Shah would also be present. On 18th February, 1996, Aimil Shah calledthe counsel for the plaintiff and informed her that due to his preoccupa