AIR 1989 GUJARAT 227

Gujarat High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Amratlal P. Ravani , J

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Condonation of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" - Liberal construction - Absence of negligence or inaction is not precondition. Absence of negligence or inaction on the part of the party seeking to condone delay is not a pre-condition, for interpreting 'sufficient cause" in liberal manner. The underlying principle to be kept in mind is that the ultimate object of the procedural laws is to see that substantial justice is done to the parties. Hence it should be the endeavour of the court to see that the disputes are resolved as far as possible on merits in just, fair and reasonable manner. Victory or defeat on technical grounds should ordinarily be avoided and discouraged. That is the reason why the question to be asked should be - Is there deliberate delay? Is it on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides? Is it on account of any ulterior motive so that it can reasonably be pointed out that by resorting to delay the litigant was likely to be benefited? To achieve the goal of substantial justice, the words 'sufficient cause' occurring in S.5 of the Limitation Act are required to be interpreted liberally. @page-Guj228 AIR 1987 SC 1353; AIR 1978 SC 537 and (1975) 16 Guj LR 835 Foll.(Para 6) (B) ....