JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The Food Corporation of India has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in M.J.C.No. 88 of 1997 refusing to restore the Money Suit No. 133 of 1989.

2. The Food Corporation of India, in short, the ‘Corporation’ as plaintiff, filed Money Suit No. 133 of 1989 in the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, presently redesignated as Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna for realisation of Rs. 3,27,189.65 from the respondents, who were defendants in the Court below. It is alleged that the said suit was posted to 16.11.1995 for ex parte hearing. However, on the said date, due to certain inadvertent and compelling reasons, the plaintiff could not appear and filed a petition for time. Learned Court below rejected the petition for time and dismissed the suit for default. On 31.3.1997 a petition was filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was registered as M.J.C.No. 88 of 1997 alongwith a petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Learned trial Court by order dated 4.10.1999 dismissed the said M.J.C.and the said order is impugned in this appeal.

3. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed on 16.11.1995 and the petition under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. was filed on 31.3.1997 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. The appellant-petitioner filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act stating therein that the delay has occasioned due to official non-communication of the order of dismissal as well as the preoccupation of the Managing Director. Objection was filed by the opposite parties repudiating the plea taken.

4. The plaintiff-Corporation in order to substantiate the stand taken by it, examined one witness and exhibited one document. The Assistant Manager of the Corporation, examined as O.P.W. 1, on solemn affirmation stated that the delay had been occasioned due to inadvertent reasons and that there was neither deliberate latches nor any intention to harass the opposite party-respondent.

5. On behalf of the opposite party respondent, neither any witness was examined nor any document was exhibited.

6. Learned trial Court dismissed the petition under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. solely on the ground that as huge amount was involved, the Corporation ought to have been more vigilant about the matter in order to save public money going astray.

7. Heard Miss Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent at length.

8. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the Corporation for realisation of Rs. 3,27,189.65 from the defendant-respondent. This amount is claimed to be the loss sustained by the Corporation which is an instrumentality of the Govt. due to the alleged latches of the defendant-respondent. Thus, huge amount of public exchequer is involved in the present suit.

9. The power to condone delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Court to enable them to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag v. Mst. Katiji reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 held that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that :

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. ‘Every day’s del