The legal principle established is that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice to the parties.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Verma, J.

This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the code) has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) against the order dated 6.10.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby the application of the petitioner under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession of certain immovable properties against the defendants/respondents (hereafter referred to as 'the respondents' in the court of the learned Sub Judge (3), Shimla. The suit was dismissed by the said court vide its judgment and decree dated 6.11.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree in the court of the learned District Judge, Shimla on 18.2.1998 by which time the appeal apparently had become time barred, therefore, alongwith the memorandum of appeal the petitioner moved an application under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the grounds that he had gone out of Shimla due to his personal work and he was informed of the decision in the suit by his counsel as soon as the judgment was rendered and that he (counsel) had applied for certified copies of judgment and decree. However, the counsel never supplied those copies to the petitioner who had to apply for the certified copies of the judgment and decree afresh on 30.11.1997 through one of his friends. The petitioner's friend informed him of the receipt of the copies on 15.1.1998 by which time the limitation for filing the appeal was already over. The petitioner contacted a lawyer for filing the appeal who informed that the courts wee going to close on 17.1.1998 for winter vacation, therefore, the appeal could be filed only after the re-opening of the courts. The courts re-opened on 18.2.1998 and the appeal was filed on that very day.

3. The respondents contested the application for condonation of delay on the grounds that no ground much less a sufficient ground for condonation of delay is made out inasmuch as the certified copies were admittedly received by the petitioner on 15.1.1998, therefore, he could file the appeal before the closure of the courts for winter vacation.

4. On the respective averments of the parties, the learned District Judge framed the following issues :

(1) Are there sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal? OPA.

(2) Relief.

5. On considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge held issue No. 1 against the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the application. Hence, this petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and have also gone through the records. However, none appeared to argue the case for respondent No. 2.

7. It is evident from the stamp affixed on the certified copies of the judgment and decree sheet that application for supply of these copies was made on 30.11.1997. The copy was attested and delivered on 6.1.1998. The version of the petitioner is that he was informed of the decision in the suit by his counsel who had also applied for certified copies o the judgment and decree which were never received and that he had to apply for such copies through his friend P.R. Gupta. He has further stated that such copies wee received by his friend on 7th or 8m January, 1998 were sent to him by post which were received by him on 8th or 9th January, 1998. On 15th January, 1998 he sent back those copies as the Courts remain closed upto 17.2.1998, therefore, he filed appeal on 18.2.1998 without any deliberate delay on his part In the cross examination he has further stated that after receipt of the information about the fact of the suit he tried to contact his counsel telephonically two or three times but failed to con