Point of Law: Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code 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. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency offending fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant revision petition is directed against order dated 01.10.2011 (for short the impugned order) passed by the court of Munsiff, Kathua, (for short the trial court), in terms whereof the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein is held to have abated.

FACTS

2. A suit is stated to have been instituted by the petitioners herein against the respondents herein in the court of Munsiff Kathua, in the year 1993. Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein in the written statement on 06.06.2005 filed before the trial court is stated to have pleaded that the defendant No. 3 namely Ranjit Kour had expired. Upon getting the aforesaid knowledge about the death of Ranjit Kour petitioner herein is stated to have filed an application on 16.11.2005 supported with affidavit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for bringing on record the legal heirs of the said deceased. The deceased Ranjit Kour is stated to have been proceeded ex-parte in the suit on 03.03.1994. The legal heirs of the said deceased are stated to have filed objections to the said application wherein the said legal heirs are stated to have pleaded that Ranjit Kour died somewhere in April 1999.

3. The trial court is stated to have considered the application for bringing on record the legal heirs and vide impugned order held that the suit is abated against the original defendants 1 to 3.

4. The impugned order is being challenged inter-alia amongst others on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard to the provisions of Order 22 CPC read with Article 177 of the Limitation Act.

5. It is being also contended that the trial court completely ignored the admitted facts of the case and passed impugned order in violation of provisions of law and against substantial justice.

6. It is being next contended that the trial court completely overlooked provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC while passing the impugned order which besides being illegal is, arbitrary as well. The impugned order of abatement is stated to have been passed by the trial court despite the fact that the right to sue survived.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit came to be instituted in the year 1993, by the petitioners herein against respondents 1 and 2 and predecessors of interest of respondents 3 to 37.

9. Perusal of the record further reveals that the written statement filed by defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein on 06.06.2005, wherein death of defendant No. 3 namely Smt. Ranjit Kour widow of Harman Singh being survived by a son namely Mohan Singh being defendant No. 2 in the suit and respondent No. 2 herein had been pleaded.

10. Further perusal of the record reveals that an application came to be filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein on 16.11.2005 for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased -defendant No. 3 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application admittedly is filed within six months of time from the date of death of the deceased was pleaded in the written statement filed by defendant/respondents herein on 06.06.2005. The application supra filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein prayed for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased/defendant No. 3 inasmuch as sought condonation of delay in filing the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

11. Indisputably, period of limitation for bringing on record legal representatives of the defendant is 90 days and a defendant who dies during the pendency of the suit the time thereof starts running from the date of death of the defendant.

12. A reference to Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC here would be appropriate and accordingly is, reproduced here under: -

22 (R-4). Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.

(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone or a sole defendant or sole s