Demonstration of sufficient cause supported by bona fide action is essential to condone the delay in filing an appeal, and the failure to take proactive measures to stay informed about the progress of the case may lead to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

V.M. Jain, J. - This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 30.8.1997 passed by the District Judge, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and resultantly dismissing the appeal as time barred.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Karam Chand, plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration against the defendants, namely, Bhairo Parshad, Smt. Bado Devi and Smt. Nimbo. In the said suit, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte. After recording ex parte evidence, the learned trial Court, vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 2.4.1994, decreed the suit of Karam Chand, plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said ex parte judgment and decree dated 2.4.1994, Bhairo Parshad, defendant, filed an appeal before the District Judge and since the appeal was time barred, he also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by filing written reply. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed the following issues :-

" 1. Whether delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned for the reasons given in the application ? OPA

2. Relief."

3. The parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge decided Issue No. 1 against the defendant-appellant, Bhairo Parshad, and it was held that no case was made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the result, the learned District Judge dismissed the application of Bhairo Parshad, defendant-appellant, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal was also dismissed as time barred, vide judgement dated 30.8.1997. Aggrieved against this judgement of the learned District Judge, Bhairo Parshad, defendant, filed the present revision petition in this Court.

4. Notice of motion was issued. Trial Court record was summoned. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner submitted before me that it was only on 16.5.1994, that the petitioner came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 2.4.1994 when he received a letter from his counsel before the Financial Commissioner at Chandigarh and thereupon he filed the appeal on 1.6.1994 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the limitation for filing the appeal would be 30 days from the date of the knowledge when the ex parte judgment and decree was passed, in view of the provisions of Article 123 of the Limitation Act and that being so, the appeal was filed within time and in any case the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned. Reliance was placed on Amarjit Singh v. Harnam Singh, 1990 PLJ 22, Angrez Singh and another v. Sadha Singh and others, 1978 PLJ 308 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353. It was further submitted that in the present case the counsel appearing for the defendants in the trial Court had pleaded no instructions on 25.11.1993 and the defence of the defendants was struck off and the case was adjourned to 10.12.1993, on which date no one had appeared on behalf of the defendants and the defendants were proceeded against ex parte. It was submitted that when the counsel appearing for the defendants had pleaded no instructions before the trial Court on 25.11.1993, the Court was required to issue notice to the defendants. Reliance was placed on Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and another, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1182.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 submitted before m