IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberal, especially in light of extraordinary circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, provided there is no negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 5142 of 2022

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 444 days which has occurred in filing the instant appeal.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants by giving explanation in the delay condonation application that the order impugned has been passed during the period when pandemic Covid19 was prevalent. It has been contended by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the period of limitation during pandemic Covid-19 period has been waived and by taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, the appeal is said to be filed after delay of about 16 days only. The learned counsel for the appellants in view of the aforesaid explanation has submitted that the delay in filing the instant appeal may be condoned.

3. This Court is conscious with the issue that the delay irrespective of the period is to be condoned depending upon the sufficient cause if shown by the litigant concerned.

4. The “sufficient cause” has been defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953] , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR 2012 SC 1629].)

10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] this Court explained the difference between a “good cause” and a “sufficient cause” and observed that every “sufficient cause” is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of “sufficient cause”.

11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the pa