The expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, should be considered with a pragmatic justice-oriented approach rather than on technical grounds. The merits of the case should be considered while deciding an application for condonation of delay.

R.R. Yadav, J.-This is defendants’ second appeal filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur as well as Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur against the Judgment and decree dated 8-12-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994 whereby he refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant second appeal are that plaintiff-respondent Poonam Chand filed a Civil Suit No. 13 8/94 for permanent injunction over the disputed land measuring 6825 Square Yards situated in city of Jodhpur. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 12-9-94 but as the Counsel engaged on behalf of the defendant-appellants did not inform about the Judgment and decree dated 12-9-94 passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, an appeal could not be filed by the defendant-appellants within limitation.

3. After getting information about the Judgment and decree dated 12-9-94, the defendant-appellants applied for certified copies of Judgment and decree of the learned trial Court with promptitude and filed the appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit on 5-5-95. It is also averred in the aforesaid application for condonation of delay that the defendant-appellants were

informed by Smt. Manju Maheshwari, Advocate about the Judgment and decree dated 12-9-94 on 2-5-95.

4. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act that due to misconduct of the Counsel engaged by the defendant-appellants, they are going to be deprived of 6825 Square Yards land situated in city of Jodhpur, valuation of which is more than Rs. One Crore. In the aforesaid application, the defendant-appellants have also alleged that the decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent from the learned trial Court on 12-9-94 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the mandatory provisions envisaged under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1976’).

5. The aforesaid application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground, inter alia, that both the Counsel namely, Shri Basant Raj Mehta and Shri Ram Vilas are senior Counsel at the Bapand well-versed with law and as such no misconducts are attributable to them. It is also averred that the defendant-appellants ought to have been vigilant about filing of the appeal within limitation.

6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that since learned Counsel engaged on behalf of the defendant-appellants had not filed any affidavit in support of the application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, and the explanation relating to inordinate delay of seven months, was hot satisfactorily explained, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was rejected and appeal was dismissed as barred by lapse of time.

7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable, the present second appeal has been filed.

8. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, on 8-1-87, it was directed to list this second appeal for final disposal at admission stage.

9. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

10. Perused Judgment s and decree under appeal.

11. It is a unique case where learned Counsel appearing for both the parties are placing reliance on a decision rendered by me in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hema Ram, reported in 1996 All India High Court Cases 4498 with equal vehemence. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants is placing reliance on paragraphs 15 and 32 of m