A party seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must show sufficient cause for the delay. The court will consider all relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether sufficient cause has been shown.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Smt. Madhuribai is taking exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 3a of 1992 by which he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

( 2 ) BY filing appeal in the District Court Ujjain, appellant Madhuribai challenged the decree and order passed by Civil Judge Class II, Khachrod in the matter of Civil Suit No. 203-A of 1988. The said decree was passed in favour of present respondent directing eviction of the present appellant from the suit premises.

( 3 ) IN the District Court, Ujjain an application was filed by present appellant on 11-2-1992 wherein she prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which was for the period between 2-1-1992 to 10-2-1992. The said application was supported by the affidavit of appellant Madhuribai and two medical certificates given by Dr. D. M. Sisodiya bearing dates 10-1-1992 and 5-2-1992. In certificate dated 10-1-1992 Dr. Sisodiya had certified that appellant Madhuribai was suffering from typhoid and fever and was under his medical treatment. By the said certificate he expressed his opinion that Madhuribai should be allowed 14 days leave with effect from 31-12-1991 to 14-1-1992. By certificate dated 5-2-1992 Dr. Sisodiya certified that appellant Madhuribai was suffering from anaemia and colic and was unable to perform her duties and was requiring complete rest and was, according to his opinion, entitled to get 16 days leave w. e. f. 29-1-1992to 13-2-1992. Said prayer for condonation of delay was objected to by the present respondent. The learned first appellate Court by order dated 19-2-1992 dismissed the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay and that is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. 3a. The present appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the first appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred without holding an inquiry and giving opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in support of her application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act? (2) Whether an inference of sufficient cause for delay can be drawn in favour of the appellant?

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri Bhartiya submitted that the appellant happens to be a lady and as averred by her in written statement, was mentally disturbed. He submitted that when two medical certificates were furnished by the appellant explaining the delay, the learned first appellate Court should have condoned the delay but that has not been done and, therefore, the learned first appellate Court committed an error of law.

( 5 ) SHRI Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the application, the present appellant has given different reasons for condonation of delay. He pointed out that there is no mention in the said application that she was mentally disturbed and, therefore, was unable to file appeal within time.

( 6 ) IT is to be noted that in the said application present appellant did not mention that she was mentally disturbed and that was also a cause for delay in filing the appeal in the first appellate Court. In the said application dated 11-2-1992 she had mentioned only this much that from 2-12-1991 she was suffering from typhoid and because of that she was unable to contact her Advocate. She mentioned in the said application that on 10-2-1992 she was able to contact her Advocate and learnt that the time for filing the appeal was of one month. It is pertinent to mention that record shows that appellant has two sons and three daughters who are major. A grievance has also been made by the appellant that those two sons and three daughters who are major were not impleaded as necessary parties in the suit. Therefore when she was suffering from typhoid or anaemia as averred by her, she could have sent those children to the counsel for the purpose of filing appeal with a Vakalatnama duly signed and certified copy of the ju