The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'sufficient cause' requirement for condonation of delay should receive a liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice, and a justice-oriented approach should be adopted in considering the application for condonation of delay.

B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.

1. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. reported in (1987) I LLJ 500 SC Thakkar, J. while dealing with the question of condonation of delay observed : "To condone, or not to condone is not the only question. Whether or, not to apply the same standard in applying the 'sufficient cause' test to all the litigants regardless of their personality in the said context is another". In this writ appeal we are faced with same question and are required to answer what test is required to be applied in considering the present application to condone the delay of 65 days in preferring the appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2002 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'), Guwahati, in O.A. No. 70 of 1998.

2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 70 of 1998 filed by the State Bank of India, in instrumentality of State, on totally erroneous ground, according to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant herein filed in appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal together with an application under Section 20(3) of the said Act, praying for condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the appeal.

3. In the said application the appellant herein in clear and specific term pleaded that all the material papers including the certified copy of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal obtained on 24th June, 2002 were in the custody of the learned standing counsel for the Bank. The Bank requested the counsel vide letter dated 20th June, 2002 to supply all the relevant papers in order to prefer the appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, but, as the said learned counsel did not supply the material papers, the Bank by its letter dated 9.7.2002 requested the said counsel for fixing a date for enabling the appellant to collect the relevant papers from his residence but there has been no response. The appellant in the circumstances was constrained to address letters dated 24.7.2002, 7.8.2002, 23.8.2002, 11.9.2002, 24.9.2002 and 3.10.2002 requesting the learned Counsel to hand over the papers in order to enable the Bank to prefer an appeal. These letters have been annexed to the application and marked as Annexure 'B' to 'B-7' respectively.

4. It has further been pleaded that one Mr. Soumitra Shankar Das, an officer of the Bank who was entrusted to prefer the appeal, was suffering from bereavement as his brother died on 17.8.2002. Copy of the death certificate dated 17.8.2002 was marked as Annexure 'C'. It was under those circumstances the appellant bank could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time and there was a delay for 65 days in preferring the appeal. The case of the appellant as is evident from the contents of the application, the delay caused in filing the appeal was for the reasons entirely beyond its control, therefore, there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.

5. The respondents filed counter affidavit. Each and every statements made in support of the application seeking condonation of delay are denied. Shorn of details, the respondents have gone to the extent of suggesting that those documents annexed as Annexure 'B' to 'B-7' were manufactured by the Bank only to get advantage of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal beyond the period of limitation.

6. The learned Appellate Tribunal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that in the interest of justice the appeal should be heard on merit and accordingly condoned the delay subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs. 510 payable to the advocate of the respondents. The learned Appellate Tribunal while disposing of the application no doubt observed that "the ground set out in the petition for cond