IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE [SECTION][SECTION] T H DAY OF JUNE [SECTION]019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL R.S.A.NO.100947/[SECTION]016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.JAYASHEELA W/O MAHADEVAPPA KORI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: R.V. KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0. [SECTION]. SRI.SITHARAM S/O ANNAPPA PATIL, AGE: [SECTION]3 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0. 3. SMT.ANUSUYYA W/O NARASAPPA JADHAV, AGE: 6[SECTION] YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0. 4. SMT.KAMALABAI W/O BASAVANNEPPA BHORJI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, [SECTION] R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0 [SECTION]. SRI.ANIL S/O GOVINDRAO GAYAKWAD, AGE: [SECTION]3 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0. 6. SRI.SATYAWANT S/O SUSHEEL MURADI, AGE: [SECTION]8 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI.-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0. 7. SRI.VEERANNA S/O VIRUPAXAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0 8. SMT.HANUMAWWA W/O YALLAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 89 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0 9. SRI.ANIL S/O RAJESH MIRAJKAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0 3 10. SMT.LEELABAI W/O KASHINATH REVANKAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: R.V.KULKARNI, CHAWL, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]0 APPELLANTS (By Sri J. S. SHETTY, ADV. ) AND 1. SMT.MANGALABAI W/O VEERANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BEHIND POLICE STATION, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1 [SECTION]. SMT.RATNABAI W/O BABURAO TODKAR, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AT/POST: KADAKOL, TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-[SECTION]83101 3. SMT.SHEELA W/O VISHWA SAKHARE, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SEWARD DRIVE, JOHNSON CITY TENNESSEE, USA. 4. MISS. PREMA D/O REVANAPPA BATLI, AGE: 71 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BARDHANLNANE, HUBBALLI.-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1. 4 RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER MR.RAVI S/O VEERANAGOUDA PATIL, HUBBALLI PIN-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1. [SECTION]. SMT.PUSHPA W/O BASAVARAJ LAMBUNAVAR, AGE: [SECTION]7 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BARDANGALLI, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1 6. DR.REVANEPPA S/O BASAVARAJ LAMBUNAVAR, AGE: 3[SECTION] YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: BARDANGALLI, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1 7. KUM.PREETHI D/O BASAVARAJ LAMBUNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BARDANGALLI, HUBBALLI-[SECTION]800[SECTION]1 RESPONDENTS (By Sri K. L. PATIL AND MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R1. RESPDT NO. 4 TO 6 S/H/S. RESPDT NO.7 DISPENSED. ) THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF [ACT], AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:[SECTION]8.10.[SECTION]01[SECTION] PASSED IN R.A.NO.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, [SECTION] AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED [SECTION]1.01.[SECTION]008, PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL CIVILN JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND III-J.M.F.C., HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 AND [SECTION] FILED U/[SECTION] OF [ACT]. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Some of the unsuccessful third party applicants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]018 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, [ENTITY] in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 confirming the order dated [SECTION]1/1/[SECTION]008 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and III J.M.F.C, [ENTITY], in Execution petition case No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004 have filed this regular second appeal.
[SECTION]. The appellants have filed this application under [SECTION] of the [ACT], praying to condone the delay of 300 days in filing the appeal. Appellant No.1 Smt. [ENTITY] W/o [ENTITY] has sworn to affidavit filed along with the application. She has stated that she has sworn this affidavit for herself and on behalf of other appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]01[SECTION] passed in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 by the II Senior Civil Judge, [ENTITY], confirming the order dated [SECTION]1/1/[SECTION]008 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and III J.M.F.C. [ENTITY], in Execution Case No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004 have filed the second appeal.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein without impleading them as parties, filed O.S.No.3[SECTION]/[SECTION]003 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn) and III JMFC, [ENTITY], for vacant possession of the suit property bearing CTS No.[SECTION][SECTION]/C1 in CTS Ward No.3 situated at [ENTITY], and they have obtained a fraudulent decree against one [ENTITY] and Sri. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY], in the said case. In fact, late [ENTITY] from whom respondent Nos.1 to 7 are claiming their right had filed the HRC cases against them on the file of the I Addl. Munsiff, [ENTITY], wherein they are residing. The said [ENTITY] after coming to know that he had no case against them, had withdrawn the HRC cases. When respondent Nos.1 to 7 tried to execute the said fraudulent decree, they filed an application as objectors under [SECTION] of [ACT] in execution petition. However, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), [ENTITY], by his cryptic order dated [SECTION]1/1/[SECTION]008 dismissed the application filed by them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, some of the objectors including appellants herein filed R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008. However, the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, [ENTITY], dismissed the said appeal without considering the facts and circumstance of the case in its proper perspective and also without considering the various grounds urged by them. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the Regular Appeal filed by them as per order dated [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]01[SECTION]. Before the Lower Appellate Court, one [ENTITY] who was also one of the objectors, was representing them and he was taking care of the cases. They were under the impression that the appeal filed by them was pending before the Appellate Court. However, the said [ENTITY] who had regular contact with their advocate had not informed the progress of the case to them and as such he made them to believe that the case is pending. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 had visited the residential area in the second week of August [SECTION]016 and informed them to vacate their premises within 4 months by stating that their appeal before the Lower Appellate Court has been dismissed and they have managed to see through the said [ENTITY]. Thereafter, they verified with their advocate and came to know that their appeal before the Lower Appellate Court has been dismissed on [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]01[SECTION]. Immediately, they have taken action for getting the certified copies of the order and secured the records and filed this appeal. In this process, there is a delay of 300 days in filing the appeal and if the delay is not condoned, they will be put to great hardship and loss.
4. Respondents have filed statement of objection on the application stating as follows:-
There is enormous delay of 300 days in filing the above appeal. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the condonation of delay are all false, frivolous and concocted one. Hence, it is not tenable either in law or on facts. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.
He has further stated that the delay in filing the above appeal is due to negligent act of the appellants in not taking the necessary steps to file the above appeal within the time. The appellants have not stated when they came to know about the disposal of the case and what steps they have taken to prefer the appeal and what prevented them to prefer the appeal within the time. There is no proper explanation to these aspects. The appellants were not diligent in preferring the appeal. The appellants have not properly and satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the above appeal. The appellants have not shown sufficient cause and cogent reasons to condone the enormous delay. There is gross negligence on the part of the appellants in approaching this Court at the belated stage only to harass the respondents in one way or the other. The reasons stated in the affidavit are not bona fide one and not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the above appeal is deliberate, intentional and with a malafide intention to harass and defeat the rights of these appellants in one way or the other. Appellants were aware of the disposal of the case before the Lower Appellate Court and also aware of all the proceedings and they were sitting on the fence to watch the outcome of the proceedings before this Court in as much as out of 37 tenants [SECTION]7 tenants had preferred the appeal before this Court and the same was withdrawn by undertaking to vacate the same within the time granted by this Court. In spite of aware of all these, the appellants have not appraoched this Court within the time and with the clean hands. Under these circumstances, the appellants are not entitled for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. If delay is condoned, the respondents will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
[SECTION]. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents.
6. A short question which arise for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 300 days in filing the present appeal?
7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the appellants are in actual possession of house in their own right and not under the defendants. The delay of 300 days needs to be condoned by liberal approach in order to provide substantial justice to the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that appellants have merit in their case and that the Executing Court without holding any enquiry dismissed the application filed by the appellants under [SECTION] of [ACT], which is erroneous.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is no bona fides on the part of the appellants, the impugned judgment and decree was challenged by some of the other third party applicants before this Court in RSA No.1009[SECTION]9/[SECTION]01[SECTION], which was disposed of on [SECTION]/[SECTION]/[SECTION]016 by this Court in which the appellants in the said case have undertaken to vacate and handover over the vacant possession of respective premises on or before [SECTION]/[SECTION]/[SECTION]017. Therefore, the learned counsel further submitted that the appellants herein were aware of all the said proceedings, still they did not choose to challenge the said judgment and decree within the time prescribed by law.
9. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant No.1 herein had also filed W.P.No.111731/[SECTION]017 C/w WP Nos.11[SECTION][SECTION]3[SECTION]-33/[SECTION]017 challenging the order passed on [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] of [ACT] in Execution petition and the said writ petition came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the decree holders. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no bona fides on the part of the appellants in filing the present appeal and seeking condonation of delay.
10. It is not disputed that respondent Nos.1 to [SECTION] herein had filed OS No.3[SECTION]8/[SECTION]003 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and III JMFC, Hubballi, seeking possession of the suit property against one [ENTITY] and Sri. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] who were the legal heirs of one [ENTITY] and the said suit came to be decreed on 1[SECTION]/4/[SECTION]014. Further, respondent Nos.1 to [SECTION] had also filed O.S.No.364/[SECTION]004 before the I Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn), Hubballi, against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (Bharmashell) for possession of an area of 90' X 90' of land situated on the Eastern portion of the suit property and the said suit came to be decreed on [SECTION]4/1/[SECTION]001. It is also admitted that [ENTITY] and Sri. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] filed R.A. No.10[SECTION]/[SECTION]004 against the judgment and decree dated 1[SECTION]/4/[SECTION]004 passed in O.S.3[SECTION]8/[SECTION]003 and similarly, Bharath Petroleum Corporation filed R.A.No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]004 against judgment and decree dated [SECTION]4/1/[SECTION]004 passed in OS.No.364/[SECTION]004. It is also not disputed that both the said appeals were clubbed together and common judgment was passed and both the appeals came to be dismissed by judgment dated [SECTION]1/9/[SECTION]004 and the appellants and defendants in the said case were directed to handover the possession of the suit property within 3 months from the date of decree. It is further not disputed that against the said common judgment and decree [ENTITY] and Sri. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] had filed R.S.A.No.1319/[SECTION]004 before this Court and the said second appeal came to be dismissed on 19/1/[SECTION]00[SECTION] by granting [SECTION] years time to vacate and handover the possession of the suit property. Similarly, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., had also preferred RSA No.1[SECTION][SECTION]7/[SECTION]004 which was also disposed of granting [SECTION] years time to vacate and handover the possession of 90'X90' of land on the Eastern side of the suit property.
11. The decree holders in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S.No.3[SECTION]8/[SECTION]003 filed Execution Petition No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004 in respect of portion of decreetal property to the extent of an area of 118'ft. towards Western side 43'ft. towards East, [SECTION]61'ft. towards South and [SECTION]36'ft. towards North was handed over to the decree holders- respondent Nos.1 to [SECTION] herein as per the Bailiff Report dated 14/3/[SECTION]007. It is also not disputed that the appellants herein had filed O.S.No.94/[SECTION]007 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, [ENTITY], against respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein for declaration to declare that they have become absolute owners and lawful owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession and further they had sought for declaration to declare that the decree dated 1[SECTION]/4/[SECTION]004 passed in O.S.No.3[SECTION]8/[SECTION]003 is illegal, null and void-ab-initio and also for further consequential reliefs. Further, the appellants had also filed IA No.1 under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], in the said suit seeking an order of temporary injunction. The I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), [ENTITY], rejected the said IA No.1 by his order dated [SECTION]3/7/[SECTION]007 and subsequently, the appellants withdrawn the said suit on 14/3/[SECTION]008. Subsequent to that the appellants and other applicants filed application under [SECTION] of [ACT] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] in E.P.No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004. The said applications were resisted by the respondents-decree holders. The Executing Court after hearing the said applications dismissed the same by order dated [SECTION]1/1/[SECTION]008. Thereafter, R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 was filed by the present appellants and [SECTION]7 others on the file of the II Addl. Senior Judge, [ENTITY], which came to be dismissed by judgment dated [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]01[SECTION].
1[SECTION]. It is also not disputed that some of the applicants challenged the judgment dated [SECTION]8/1/[SECTION]01[SECTION] passed in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 before this Court in R.S.A. No.1009[SECTION]9/[SECTION]01[SECTION]. It is the same judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]018 confirming the order passed in EX No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004 which was challenged in the above said R.S.A.No.1009[SECTION]9/[SECTION]01[SECTION]. It is also not disputed that the said R.S.A.No.1009[SECTION]9/[SECTION]01[SECTION] was disposed of by judgment dated [SECTION]/[SECTION]/[SECTION]016 wherein the appellants have undertaken to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the premises on or before [SECTION]/[SECTION]/[SECTION]017. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the appellants in the present appeal have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated [SECTION]8/10/[SECTION]01[SECTION] passed in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 which was previously challenged before this Court and was confirmed in view of the undertaking given by the appellants in R.S.A.No.1009[SECTION]9/[SECTION]01[SECTION]. Only after disposal of the said second appeal, the present applicants have come up with the present appeal and that too after delay of 300 days and have filed this application to condone the delay.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in the case [PRECEDENT] in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8183- 8184 OF [SECTION]013 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13/9/[SECTION]013 and submitted that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel further submitted that the application filed by the appellants herein be allowed and they may be given an opportunity to substantiate the merits of the case before the Court.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on the judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT] since deceased by his LRS by this Court in WP No.138/[SECTION]013 on 18/[SECTION]/[SECTION]01[SECTION], wherein it is held that the Executing Court is competent to adjudicate the claim of person obstructing/resisting the delivery of possession of the property on I.A. filed under [SECTION] of [ACT]. This Court has relied on the judgment in the case of Venkatarayappa Vs. G.Muniyappa & Others reported in AIR [SECTION]008 Kant
163. In the case of Shreenath and Another Vs. Rajesh and Others reported in 1998(4) SCC [SECTION]48, this Court has observed in para 9 as follows:-
"9. A conspectus reading of the [SECTION] [ACT] with the principles of law laid down in the judgment referred to above, makes it clear that when a stranger not bound by the decree approaches the Court to protect his right, title or interest to the property, such right of any person claiming right on his own property, resists the delivery of possession of the property in Execution Petition, such right has to be adjudicated by the Executing Court under [SECTION] of [ACT]."
1[SECTION]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] stated supra has laid down the principles on which the application for condonation of delay has to be considered in para No.1[SECTION] of the judgment which reads as follows:-
"1[SECTION]. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the above stated 13 principles on which the application for condonation of delay has to be considered. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there should be liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. At the same time, no presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. It is also necessary to consider the lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. So also the conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellants herein were all along aware of the proceedings initiated by some of the other applicants who had all together filed the applications before the Executing Court under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The contention of the appellants that they were not aware of the proceedings in R.S.A.No.1009[SECTION]9 of [SECTION]01[SECTION] in which the very impugned judgment and decree was challenged cannot be accepted. The contention of the appellants that one [ENTITY] who is also one of the objectors was looking after the cases and that he made them to believe that their appeal before the First Appellate Court is pending and that they came to know about the dismissal of the regular appeal in R.A.No.[SECTION]7/[SECTION]008 only when the decree holders visited the suit property in the second week of August [SECTION]016 cannot be accepted. Even for a moment accepting that the present appellants came to know about the dismissal of the regular appeal in the second week of August [SECTION]016 the present appeal came to be filed on [SECTION]1st November [SECTION]016.
18. The very conduct of the appellants goes to show that the decree obtained by the decree holders against [ENTITY] and Sri. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] and when the said decree was sought to be executed in E.P.No.1[SECTION]6/[SECTION]004, the appellants filed application under [SECTION] of [ACT] as objectors. At the same time, appellants herein also filed O.S.No.94/[SECTION]007 against respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein seeking declaration that they have become absolute owners of the suit property by adverse possession with consequential relief. Therefore, it is made out by the materials on record that there is no bona fides in filing the present appeal after delay of 300 days.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment in the case of Basavaraj and Another Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in [SECTION]013 (4) KCCR 3430 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 f the judgment has held as follows:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: [PRECEDENT]; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 19[SECTION]3; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR [SECTION]011 SC 11[SECTION]0; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR [SECTION]01[SECTION] SC 16[SECTION]9.)
[SECTION]0. Therefore, applicants in the present case have to satisfy the Court that they were prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting their appeal and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. Further Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or merely devise to cover the ulterior purpose. In the present case, the appellants- applicants have not made out any sufficient cause, by which, they were prevented from filing the present appeal within the prescribed time. The application also lacks bona fides.
[SECTION]1. Admittedly, the merits of the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court and order passed by the Executing Court were already put to scrutiny before this Court in R.S.A.No.1009[SECTION]9 of [SECTION]01[SECTION] and the Judgment in the said case is sufficient to hold that the impugned Judgment and order have been upheld. Therefore, the merits in the present appeal are already considered by this Court in the above stated Regular Second Appeal. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellants' applications have not at all made out any sufficient cause to condone the delay and that the application also lacks bona fides and therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. Point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Interlocutory Application filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is hereby dismissed. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE Vmb/ckk