JUDGMENT :

K.C. Sood, J.

Dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, dated 22nd June, 1995, appellant-plaintiffs laid a second appeal in this Court in September, 1995.

2. The appeal was admitted on 29th September, 1995. It appears, during the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant Sheetal Singh died on 14th April, 1999. No steps were taken to substitute legal heirs of the sole appellant for more than four years. It was on 18th September, 2003 that these three applications under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were filed for substitution of the legal representatives of the sole appellant. The appeal abated in 1999 itself and the applications were filed after four years and seven days of the expiry of the period of the limitation. According to the applicant, the appeal was filed by the appellant through his General power of Attorney Sardul Singh and Sardul Singh was under bonafide mistake that the appeal is "duly filed". It was on 6m August 2003 Sardul Singh came to Shimla to inquire about the appeal and informed his counsel that appellant Sheetal Singh has died. Counsel advised him to bring legal heirs certificate which was obtained on 8th August, 2003 and therefore, the delay in filing the applications deserved to be condoned. In the other application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure similar cause is pleaded. The plea of the appellant as spelt out in para-6 of the application is:

That as the appeal was filed by the said General Power of Attorney Shri Surdul Singh the said also Attorney remain under bonafide mistake of fact that the appeal is duly filed and it was only on 06.08.2003 when he came to Shimla to inquire about the appeal and its out come in Hon'ble Court, he apprised his counsel that Sh. Sheetal Singh has died whereby he was advised to brig legal heir certificate which he obtain on 08.8.2003 and death certificate of Sh. Sheetal Singh which is being filed with this application."

3. The question which raisers for consideration is:

Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the long delay of four years and seven days?

4. Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants proposed legal representatives would submit that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of Sardul Singh, General Power of Attorney, which caused the delay and this would be sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.

5. Mr.Sharma heavily rely on Bhagwan Swaroop and others v. Moot Chand and others, AIR 1983 SC 355 and Piara Singh and others v. Natha Singh and others, AIR 1991 SC 1529 in support of his contention.

6. The application is opposed on the grounds that no sufficient cause is either shown or made out. The factum of death was known to the applicants being sons, grand-son and daughter-in-law of Sheetal Singh. The General power of Attorney, Sardul Singh is none other than the son of appellant Sheetal Singh. There is no explanation for the delay in filing this petition.

7. Sufficient cause" it is well settled, is a cause which is beyond the control of the party claiming the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The cause for delay, which a party could have avoided by exercise of due care and diligence, will not be a "sufficient cause'. The test is to see whether the delay is bonafide or due to remissness or lack of care and caution in pursuing the litigation. In deed delay due to remissness or lack of care would not make out sufficient cause.

8. It is true that expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, but this can only be done if no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is attributable to the applicants. It must be remembered that litigant acquire a valuable right on the abatement of a suit or appeal. It is always for the applicant to spell out cogent grounds for condoning