IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12504 of 2011 Md. Noor Alam …………….. Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ………….. Opp. Parties. ---------------------------------- 4. 11.08.2011 The name of respondent No.1 is deleted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by Subordinate Judge – IV Motihari in Title Suit No. 456 of 2007 whereby the learned court below allowed the substitution application and substituted the legal representatives of the sole appellant after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier two applications were filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure which were not pressed and dismissed on 17.9.2007 and 7.2.2008. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequently another application for substitution has been filed on 7.2.2008 and separate limitation application has been filed wherein no explanation has been given regarding day to day delay. According to the learned counsel the respondents were required to explain the delay on day to day basis. The 2 learned counsel further submitted that because of order for dismissal of the earlier two applications they are estopped from making third application for substitution. From perusal of the limitation application which has been annexed as Annexure 6-B it appears that the respondents have taken a ground that earlier the applications were filed by the legal representatives for being added as party and on technical ground the said applications were dismissed. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below considered all these aspects of the matter and condoned the delay and set aside the abatement on payment of cost of Rs.300/- to be paid to the petitioner. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kishore Lal 2010 (1) PLJR 644 a Division Bench of this Court considering various decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the expression sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally and the court should adopt a liberal approach. The condonation of delay is discretionary jurisdiction and the court must consider it from all spectrums having a lenient approach. The learned court below in exercise of his jurisdiction satisfied that the legal representatives were prevented by sufficient cause from not filing the substitution application and, therefore, the 3 limitation has been condoned. The sufficiency or otherwise of reasoning of the learned court below cannot be interfered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order as such this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)