The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to advance substantial justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.D.Dave for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.Jaydeepsinh H. Rajput for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Harshada K. Darji for the respondent No.2 and 3.

2. This application is filed to condone delay of 265 days in preferring Civil Revision Application.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr.R.D.Dave for the applicant submitted that the time was consumed for obtaining the documents like loan agreement, deposit of title deeds etc. from the respondent No.4-Bank as well as from the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the DRT’) and Recovery Officer as the applicant is only purchaser and did not have all the papers relating to recovery proceedings and orders.

3.2. It was therefore submitted that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 265 days caused in filing the Civil Revision Application.

3.3. It was further submitted that the applicant has a good prima-facie case and balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant as the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit filed by respondent No.1 as a tenant of the property which was purchased by the applicant under auction conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued in Original Application No.251 of 2004 filed by the respondent No.4-Bank for recovery of outstanding dues under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Dues to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Correct name now is ‘Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993)(for short ‘the RDB Act’).

4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Rajput and learned advocate Ms.Darji vehemently opposed this application relying upon the averments made in the separate affidavits-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was submitted that the applicant has failed to disclose sufficient cause to condone delay of 265 days. Reliance was placed on the following decisions of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court explaining as to what is sufficient cause within meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act :

(1) Soni Shantaben Devshibhai Lodhiya versus Bhagvanji P. Mardia reported in 2001 (2) GLH 13.

(2) Balwant Singh (Dead) versus Jagdish Singh and Others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 685.

(3) Ramlal versus Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 361.

(4) Balwant Singh Versus Jagdish Singh reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043.

(5) P.K.Ramchandran versus State of Kerala reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556.

4.2. Relying upon the above decisions, it was submitted that looking to the over all facts of the case and conduct of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for to condone the delay as the applicant has failed to point out the sufficient cause explaining the delay as the delay is explained in a very casual manner by stating the only reason that the time was consumed for gathering documents regarding proceedings of the DRT. It was submitted that the applicant has not come up with proper explanation because the applicant had preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) on the basis of the DRT proceedings and had referred all the documents before the Trial Court and therefor, the explanation tendered by the applicant to condone the delay cannot be believed.

4.3. It was further submitted that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in Court to condone the delay in preferring the Civil Revision Application. It was therefore submitted that the application is required to be rejected for want of sufficient cause for explaining the delay in preferring the Civil Revision Application.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides and considering the facts of the case emerging from the record, it appears that the applicant has challenged the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court No.10 below application Exh.5