THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CMA MP No. 1999 of 2012 IN Rev. CMA MP (SR) No.43789 of 2012 IN CMA No. 779 of 2010 ORDER: 1. CMA MP No.1999 of 2012 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 290 days caused in filing the review petition in Rev.CMA MP (SR) No.43789 of 2012 seeking to review the order dated 29.08.2011 passed in CMA No.779 of 2010. 2. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if a party shows sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the stipulated time, then it can be considered as a ground to condone the delay. The word “sufficient cause” has not been defined under the Act. The existence of ‘sufficient cause’ to the satisfaction of Court is the condition set for the Court to exercise its discretion in the matter of condonation of delay. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act employed by the legislature is elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. But it must mean the cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the said provision. When no negligence or inaction is imputable to the party then it can be treated as a sufficient cause. There was a delay of 290 days in filing the review application and the review petitioner has represented that an application in OAA No. 308 of 2006 was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal alleging that the son of the applicants accidentally slipped from the train, sustained injuries and died and due to the said accident the delay was occurred. No sufficient cause for not filing the review is shown in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. In the absence of any sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. That cannot be a ground to condone the delay. 3. Hence, the CMA MP No.1999 of 2012 is dismissed. Consequently, the Review CMA MP (SR) No.43789 of 2012 is rejected. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 07th November, 2012 KSM