Abdur Rahman, J.

1. This is an application to excuse the delay in presenting a petition for review against the orders passed by Mr. Justice Venkatasubba Rao and myself in A.S. No. 343 of 1931 on the 4th March, 1938, I have not, up till now, decided to issue any notice in regard to the petition for review and nothing in this order shall be taken to refer to the application for review which I shall consider separately.

2. Since the existence of sufficient cause is a condition precedent without which the discretion given to a Court under this section cannot be exercised, the question whether the delay should be excused depends for its answer on the fact whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out the same. According to the well-known decision in Krishna v. Chathappan I.L.R.(1889) Mad. 269 cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, the words sufficient cause have to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice particularly when "no negligence, nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant". In defining the general rules of guidance for the exercise of discretion, Lord Dunedin observed in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram.

We think the true guid