THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5191 OF 2011 Dated:15.12.2011 Between: Malladi Satyalingam Naicker Charities, Kakinada, represented by its Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer .. Petitioner And Sir Komireddy Suryara and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5191 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a charitable institution. They filed O.S.No.305 of 2004 against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,778/-. The suit was dismissed on 30.12.2008. Two years thereafter, they filed first appeal being ASSR.No.149 of 2011 with an application being I.A.No.474 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) for condonation of delay of 745 days. The application having been dismissed by the Court of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, they filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the affidavit filed in I.A.No.474 of 2011. In support of the plea of sufficient cause of condonation of delay, it is stated that the deponent of the affidavit taken additional charge of the petitioner charities prior to filing of the application and filed copy application on 31.07.2010; the copy was made ready on 04.08.2010 and after going through the same, the first appeal was filed before the Principal District Judge. From this, it becomes clear that the copy application itself was filed with a delay of one year seven months. Except stating that the delay occurred due to change of guard and transfer of concerned staff members, no further details are given. As held by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v Jagdish Singh[1] the expression “sufficient cause” is to be construed liberally, to advance substantial justice, but it does not permit negligence or inaction on the part of the party. In this case, the negligence is writ large and delay is not properly explained. After perusing the order of the learned District Judge, this Court is convinced that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in this revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.12.2011 KH [1] (2010) 8 SCC 685