SUNITA DEVI AND OTHERS vs SUDHARSHAN KUMAR AND OTHER

SARITA RANI 2026.07.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CM-25516-CII-2025 in/and 2026:PHHC:095477 FAO-7106-2025 counsel, who agreed to represent them on a pro bono basis, whereaer the present appeal came to be instuted. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the explanaon furnished does not constute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act. 5. It is well se&led that although the expression "sufficient cause" deserves a liberal construcon to advance substanal jusce, parcularly where refusal to condone delay may result in denial of adjudicaon on merits, such liberality does not dispense with the requirement of furnishing a bona fide, cogent and sasfactory explanaon covering the enre period of delay. The discreon vested in the Court under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act is to be exercised on sound judicial principles and cannot be invoked merely because the applicant seeks a liberal approach. 6. In the present case, the appellants were duly represented by counsel before the Tribunal. They were, therefore, not without legal assistance or advice regard