The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and the emphasis on condoning delays in the interest of justice, unless gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.

Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri R. K. Srivastava for petitioner and Sri S. K. Pandey for respondents.

2. This writ petition arises out of orders passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 4A/2000 rejecting petitioner’s application to set aside ex parte decree dated 10.1.2000 in Original Suit No. 215 of 1989 between Mukkha v. General Manager, U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Saharanpur and others, and the order of District Judge, Saharanpur dated 29.4.2002 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2002 dismissing the appeal against the order of the trial court.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the plaintiff filed an Original Suit No. 215/1989 for dispossession of defendants from suit land in Chak No. 136, Gata No. 252. It was alleged that the defendant forcibly entered and started digging on 10.11.1989 and that on 16.3.1990 they constructed 6 feet wall, and fitted angle iron and barbed wire over the wall. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant Sugar Mill is continuing in wrongful possession, and also claimed damages.

4. A written statement was filed by the defendant. The trial court fixed the matter on 12.1.1998 for disposal of Commissioner’s report. The defendant remained absent on that date, and thereafter, inspite of information sent to counsel for the defendant, Sri Basant Singh to appear on 12.2.1998. No one appeared on that date. The suit was decreed ex parte on 20.5.1998. The defendants filed an application on 13.1.2000 for setting aside ex parte decree along with an application for codonation of delay. The application was filed after about twenty months with the explanation that Sri S. T. Khan, who was looking after the case for the defendant-Corporation had suffered a heart attack. He could not come to the Court and was not aware of the subsequent proceedings. A medical certificate was filed in support of the explanation.

5. The trial court found that the medical certificate was of the year 1999 ; the counsel for the defendant was given information after which several dates were fixed but no one appeared on behalf of defendant. The trial court did not accept the explanation for delay as well as the absence on the dates fixed in the matter and rejected the application. The Appellate Court has found that the medical certificates relate to the month of March, 1999, and held that the findings arrived at by the trial court were not perverse to call for any interference, and consequently rejected the Appeal.

6. Sri R. K. Srivastava, counsel for petitioner states that the Corporation had set up a valid defence in the written statement. It is stated in paragraph 17 of the written statement that the U. P. State Cement Corporation is a body corporate, and has not been impleaded as party respondents. The entire land towards west of Khasra No. 252 of Gaon Sabha Bidwai was acquired and that a boundary wall has been constructed on the western dol, and on the eastern dol of Gaon Sabha Bidwai of Khasra No. 252. The boundary wall towards north and south were constructed. The constructions towards western side were left out for which foundation was dug and now the entire boundary wall has been constructed. In paragraph 18, it was denied that any part of Khasra No. 252 was included in the land covered by the boundary wall. The extension has been made on the land acquired for the Lord Krishna Sugar Mill of the Corporation.

7. The written statement goes to show that the defendant had a triable case. In the application for setting aside ex parte decree supported by application for condonation of delay, it was stated that the Court had fixed 21.1.1998 for objections on the survey report. On 21.1.1998, the Court directed the plaintiffs to inform the defendant’s counsel of the next date fixed on 12.2.1998. The counsel Sri Basant Singh was not given any information and that he could not inform the next date to the defendants. On 12.2.1998 not only the report was confirmed ex par