The circumstances envisaged in S.14 of the Limitation Act can constitute a 'sufficient cause' within the purview of S.5 for the purpose of appeals.

1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No.190 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. She filed CMA No. 2702 of 1982 before the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara. IA 1182 of 1982 was filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The petition was dismissed. Consequently the CMA was also dismissed.

2. The Sub Judge condoned the delay for the period from 26-11-82 to 1-12-82. But the petition was rejected on the ground that there was no explanation for the delay in re-presenting the appeal before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara on 4-12-1982.

3. CMA was filed before the District Court on 1-12-82. That was wrongly instituted in that court. It should have been filed before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. The District Court returned the appeal to the Sub Court on 3-12-83. Before the Sub Court the appeal was presented on 4-12-82. The learned Sub Judge held that even if the delay of 5 days is condoned no purpose will be served as there is no prayer to condone the delay after 1-12-1982.

4. The cardinal policy of the provision in S.14 of the Limitation Act is to furnish protection against the bar of limitation to a person who honestly and diligently solicits a trial on merits in a forum having no jurisdiction and which forum cannot afford him such a trial. Such a relief cannot be denied to a person who due to the technical plea is forced to choose the right forum provided he had acted in good faith and with due diligence. Though S.14 in terms applies to suits and applications only and not to appeals the circumstances envisaged in the section can very well constitute a "sufficient cause" within the purview of S.5 of the Act for the purpose of appeals also. In Munshi Ram v. Punna Ram (AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 229) it is held as follows:

"Though S.14 in terms applies to suits and applications only and not to appeals, the circumstances contemplated in the section can justifiably be taken to constitute a sufficient cause' within the meaning assigned to that phrase in S.5 for purposes of appeals also."

5. In IA 1182 of 1982 there is specific and clear prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. As the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the averments in the affidavit I hold that the petition has to be allowed. The order in IA No. 1182/82 is set aside and the IA is allowed condoning the delay.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Sub Judge is directed to dispose of the CMA in accordance with law. Parties will appear before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara on 30-9-1987.

Send back the records immediately to that court.