The principle of 'sufficient cause' and the justice-oriented approach should be applied in deciding matters, and matters should be decided on merits instead of dismissing them on technical grounds like abatement.

ORDER

1. This second appeal has been filed by appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2010 and 19.04.2005 whereby and whereunder the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent No.1-Plaintiff was decreed.

2. This court called for record of both courts below and issued notices to respondents vide order dated 10.04.2017. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued vide order dated 27.07.2017. Thereafter, appellants have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 23.04.2019 with an information that it transpired to the appellants that respondent No.1-Plaintiff Jagdamba Prasad has passed away on 13.01.2013 during pendency of this appeal and is survived by legal representatives, named in the application against whom right to sue and pursue the appeal survives.

3. Since there is a delay in filing the application, separate application under Section5 of the Limitation Act and another application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, seeking to set aside the abatement of appeal have also been filed.

4. This Court issued notices vide order dated 17.05.2019 on all three applications to the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1-plaintiff.

5. Notices have been served and advocate for the legal representatives has put in appearance.

6. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

7. It has been stated in the application that the factum of death of respondent No.1-Plaintiff was not brought on record nor came to the knowledge of the appellants. It has been stated that the knowledge came to only after receiving the report of the process server on the notices issued to respondent No.1-Plaintiff. Thereafter, the applications have been filed well within time from the date of having knowledge of death of respondent No.1- plaintiff, hence it has been prayed that the delay may be condoned, abatement of appeal be set aside and the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1-plaintiff may be allowed to be substituted so as to hear and decide this second appeal on merits.

8. The counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No.1 has opposed all three applications that no sufficient cause has been assigned for condonation of delay and the appeal itself has become abated by operation of law.

9. No reply to all three applications have been filed.

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Milthailal Dalsangar Singh and Ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini and Ors. [2003(10) SCC 691] has observed as under:-

9. 'The courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration that ordinarily a litigant ought not be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to miscondut, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the court. The opinion of the trial Judge allowing a prayer for setting aside abatement and his finding on the question of availability of 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order 22 and of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deserves to be given weight, and once arrived at would not normally be interfered with by superior jurisdiction.'

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195] has observed that expression 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or Order 22 Rule 9 CPC or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party.

12. In another case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh [(2010) 8 SCC 685] it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. The expression 'sufficient cause' implies