Sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section and cannot be due to negligence or inaction on the part of the party.

N.K.KAPOOR, J.

1. Appellant feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 4-8-1992 filed the appeal along with application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This Court issued notice in C.M. No. 1586-C-II of 1993 to the respondents who put in appearance and contested the same. On 26/05/1993 this Court on perusal of the application and the accompanying affidavit came, prima facie, to a conclusion that the averments made by the applicant in his application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act are in very general and vague terms. All the same before taking a final decision the Court directed the applicant to place on record further affidavit or other material to make out a sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant consequently filed another affidavit in support of his application on 1-6-1993. The matter was once again examined by the Court. It was found that even additional affidavit filed by the applicant contains mistakes and so a direction was given to the applicant to file another affidavit giving correct dates. Instead of merely correcting dates; the applicant has placed on record another affidavit giving in the details of the various circumstances which led to delay in filing the appeal. The affidavit is dated 12-8-1993.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of his plea that the delay of 47 days stands fully explained and the same comes within the ambit of sufficient cause as envisaged by Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act almost read in extenso the affidavit dated 128-1993. In addition thereto the counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case reported as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag V/s. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and thus urged that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merit.

3. Counsel for the respondents, however, argued that each one of the three affidavits filed by the applicant give different versions as to how this delay occurred. In fact, the applicant has tried to improve upon the original version as given in the application. Examined in this light there is no escape from the conclusion that the latter version as per affidavit dated 1-6-1993 and 12-8-1993, is in the nature of an after thought. The applicant, in fact, has been callous in taking suitable steps for filing this appeal and thus no case is made out for treating the delay in filing the appeal as a sufficient cause.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application along with each one of three affidavits sworn by Sh. Amarjeet Pal Chopra, Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Officer, Chandigarh applicant. Existence of sufficient cause is the condition precedent in exercise of this discretion while deciding the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Question of diligence or bona fide is to be considered thereafter. Sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act. However, as held by various judicial pronouncements, it would mean a cause beyond the control of party invoking the aid of this section. The delay, if could be avoided by taking due care and attention will not come within the ambit of sufficient cause. In the present case, in the first instance, all that has been stated in the affidavit dated 30-1-1993 is that the Regional Office of the company immediately decided to file the appeal and so directed its Divisional Office to send the necessary draft of Rs. 25,000.00 as required. The Divisional Office, however, lost the papers sent by the Regional Office and could locate the same on 22-1-1993 and it is thereafter that the file was immediately sent to the Advocate for preparation of appeal by hand on 23-1-1993 itself. Since 24th, 25th and 26th of January, 1993 were holidays, the appeal was filed on 30-1-1993. In the subsequent affidavit of 1-6-1993 the company came with a version that the appeal could not be filed as the counsel desired that certain other documents be sent