M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and with their consent, this revision application is disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 27-8- 2002 passed by the District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 68/2001 by which he has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
(3.) It appears that plaintiff filed Title suit being T.S. No. 94/93 for decree of permanent injunction and for a decree directing the defendants to execute deed of exchange. The suit was valued at Rs. .500/-. Ultimately it was found by the learned Munsif that the value of said property is more than Rs. 60,00,000/- and therefore it is beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaint was ordered to be returned and order was passed for payment of stamp duty. Against the said order petitioner preferred civil revision being C.R. No. 452/2001, which was however, withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy. The revision application was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 19-11-2001. Petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Appeal No. 68/2001 on 20-12-2001. Alongwith the memo of appeal, limitation petition was also filed. Learned District Judge refused to condone delay on the ground inter alia that petitioner/ appellants did not explain day to day delay, in my opinion, learned District Judge has not correctly appreciated the law. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., after taking into consideration the earlier decision (1997) 1 SCC 261 and 1998 (7) SCC 123 has held that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. Sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.;