THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.907 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed against the order, dated 04-08-2010 in RES No.39 and 40 of 2009 in OAA No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 86 days in filing the restoration petition and under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to restore OAA 178 of 2005 by setting aside the dismissed for default order, dated 13-03-2009, were dismissed. 2. It is stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions that the 1st applicant lived in Samalkot and she contacted an Advocate-Varalaxmi at Rajahmundry, who in turn referred the matter to one Parvathi Devi, Advocate, Hyderabad to file claim application. When they contacted Varalaxmi, she informed that the case was under consideration. When they came to Hyderabad on 24-06-2009, they found that the case was dismissed for default on 13-03-2009. It is further stated that for the mistake of the advocate, they should not be penalized. Hence, they filed the above petitions. 3. The Railways filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavits. It is stated that the untoward incident occurred on 10-04-2003, but the claim was received in the Tribunal on 14-07- 2004 i.e., more than one year for filing the claim application. The delay was condoned. Subsequently, the claim was dismissed for default on 03-10-2007 and thereafter on the application made by the applicants, it was restored. Again for non-prosecution by the applicants, the claim application was dismissed for default on 13- 03-2009. Thereafter, the present petitions are filed for condonation of delay in filing the restoration petition and for setting aside the dismissal order. The reasons given by the applicants are not sufficient and convincing. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petitions. 4. The claims Tribunal after considering the material on record, dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicants. 5. The word ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined under Section 5 of the Act, but it must mean the cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of section. Any reasonable cause, which prevented a person from approaching the Court is said to be sufficient cause. The reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions is that the bundle which was entrusted to the Advocate at Hyderabad has not given proper response to them. The applicants were under the impression that their original application was pending before the Tribunal. As seen from the affidavit, some allegations were leveled against the advocate to whom case was entrusted. There is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicants in not prosecuting the case diligently. The case advanced by the applicants can be said to be really beyond their control preventing them from approaching the Tribunal. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, but that would be a case where no negligence or want of bona fide was imputable to the applicants. But they came to know that the claim application was dismissed for default only on 24-06-2009. Therefore, for no fault on the part of the applicants and for the inadvertent mistake allegedly committed by the advocate, the applicants should not be suffered. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 04-08-2010 in RES No.39 and 40 of 2009 in OAA No.178 of 2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. No costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 30-09-2011 Hsd