- (1.) THERE is a delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal. In order to seek condonation of delay, applicants have filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Cause shown in the application is as under "that the applicant/appellants are illiterate villagers and semi-literate and do not understand the implications of the law. They were not aware of exact period of limitation. Thus, they could not file the appeal in time. The delay in filtng the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful nor does it confer any advantage or right to them. " On the basis of the averments made in para 3 of the application and on the Strength of the judgment reported at AIR 1987 S. C. 1353, counsel for the applicants has contended that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the averments made in the application I find that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time is condition that must be satisfied before the court can exercise its powers of granting or refusing extension of time. It is true that the judicial trend is to give liberal construction to the words 'sufficient cause' so as to advance substantial justice. However, at the same time, applicant must establish, that there was no negligence or any inaction or want of bona fide in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. The application for condonation of delay must contain not only the cause which led to the delay in filing the appeal but also must contain all the relevant material which would enable the Court to determine that the applicant, despite due diligence, was prevented from filing the appeal within limitation. The averments made in the application only demonstrate that the applicants were totally negligent in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Applicants contested the suit as well as first appeal. It cannot be accepted that the applicants do not understand the implication of law or that they were not aware of exact period of limitation. The applicants have also not averred as to whether they consulted any lawyer for filing the appeal and if consulted what advise the counsel had given to the applicants. This Court is not prepared to accept that after the decision, the applicants sat quietly at home and did not contact any lawyer for filing the appeal.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal is made out. Application shall stand dismissed. Regular Second Appeal also stands dismissed.;