IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4239 OF 2009 Between: Arigela Laxmi & another ..... Appellants AND Boodireddy Ilamma Boodireddy & 10 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4239 OF 2009 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 22.06.2009 in I.A.No.91 of 2009 in A.S.No.30 of 1999, on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 3350 days in filing a petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased-third appellant, was allowed, on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the abnormal delay of 3350 days in filing a petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased-third appellant in A.S.No.30 of 1999 has not been satisfactorily explained, and that the allegations in the Counter Affidavit have not been taken into consideration by the appellate Court before passing the impugned order and that without assigning any reasons, the appellate Court simply allowed the petition in I.A.No.91 of 2009. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 contended that the respondents did not know the pendency of the appeal, and that during the pendency of the appeal A.S.No.30 of 1999, the third appellant died on 28.01.2000 leaving behind Respondent Nos.1 to 5 as his legal representatives, and that due to ignorance, illiteracy and lack of knowledge of pendency of appeal, the respondents 1 to 5 herein did not take any steps to implead them as legal representatives of deceased-third appellant, and that therefore, there was a delay of 3350 days in filing a petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased/third appellant and hence, the appellate Court rightly condoned the delay of 3350 days in filing a petition to implead the legal representatives of the deceased/third appellant in A.S.No.30 of 1999. 5. The word “sufficient cause” is not defined in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. When a person is prevented by a sufficient reason to approach the Court in filing the application, that can be said to be a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason given by the legal representatives of the deceased-third appellant is that they were not aware of the filing of the appeal by their father and that subsequently, they came to know about the same. The said aspect of the case has not been disputed or denied. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that inspite of knowledge about the pendency of the appeal, they have not filed a petition to bring them on record. Therefore, the reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in the appellate Court to condone delay that the delay was caused due to the non-cognition of the pendency of the appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased-third appellant can be accepted. If that is accepted, though there is a delay, to do substantial justice to the parties in view of the fact that the substantive rights of the parties are being effected in the appeal, the respondents 1 to 5 herein can be brought on record in view of the decision reported in RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU AND OTHERS VS. GOBARDHAN SAO AND OTHERS[1], wherein it is held thus: “Thus it becomes plain that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute “sufficient cause” or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.” So, in view of the above decision, the legal heirs of the deceased-third appellant were rightly brought on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, imposing of costs of Rs.500/- by the trial Court on the respondents 1 to 5 herein for the delay in filing the petition is not adequate. Hence, the costs of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- to be payable within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in the trial Court. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 21st September, 2010. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4239 OF 2009 21st September, 2010. KL [1] (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195