IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.503 of 2006 CHANDESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA Versus PASHUPATI JHA & ORS ----------- 20 16.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party Nos. 6 to 12. Despite service of notice the opposite parties 1 to 5 have not appeared. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default on 29.7.1997 to say the least is wholly perfunctory for a simple reason that the Court below has entered into the realm of speculation while holding that it was not believable that the son is not the aware of dismissal of the suit filed by his father. There cannot be any such presumption that everything that a father does, is expected to be known to the son. There is nothing on record to sustain such a view of the Court below on the basis of which it had gone to hold in the impugned order that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the proceedings of suit filed by his father. That apart the observation made by the Court below that the delay of eight years could not be condoned under the Limitation Act, again is too a wide and infact a sweeping observation, which cannot be sustained inasmuch as it is well settled that limitation of any period - 2 - can be condoned provided there is a sufficient cause for it. The Court below infact has not proceeded to hold that there is no sufficient cause for the delay caused in filing of the restoration application. It has also not come to the conclusion that for all this period the petitioner despite being aware had purposely neglected seeking restoration of the suit. If these things are taken on the consideration, the order of the Court below becomes wholly unsustainable. Be that as it may, this Court would hold that the Court below has committed an apparent jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order which is even otherwise unsustainable either on fact and/or in law. That being so, this Civil Revision application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to restore Title Suit no. 68/1986 and dispose it of on merit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)