Court denies condonation for delay in filing Legal Representatives' application, citing lack of sufficient cause.

The court rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing an application to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant on record. The delay of 2945 days was deemed unjustified, with the court finding the explanations provided by the applicants lacking sufficient cause. Despite arguments emphasizing unintentional delay and challenges faced, the court held that the reasons presented were unconvincing. As a result, the application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing Legal Representatives on record.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:
The present civil application was filed for condonation of delay in filing an application to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased appellant on record, who died on 30th October 1999. The delay in filing the application was 2945 days. The applicants claimed that they were unaware of the pendency of the second appeal due to their circumstances, including the illiteracy of applicant no.1 and the minority of applicants 2 and 3 at the time. They only became aware of the appeal on 15th November 2004 through a letter from their advocate. Subsequently, they faced several challenges, including the accident and memory loss of applicant Anil, which further delayed their actions.

The applicants argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond their control, and cited several judgments to support a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. They emphasized that the delay did not benefit them and that substantial justice should be prioritized over technicalities.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the delay was excessive and the explanations provided were vague and insufficient. They contended that the applicants had ample time and opportunity to take necessary steps but failed to do so.

The court, after careful consideration of the averments and the judgments cited, concluded that the explanations provided by the applicants were not convincing and lacked sufficient cause. The court noted that the applicants had not taken any steps from 26.11.2004 to 6.1.2005 and that the medical certificate provided did not adequately support the claim of memory loss. The court also highlighted that the younger brother of applicant Anil could have pursued the matter.

Ultimately, the court held that the delay of 2945 days was not justified and did not disclose sufficient cause to warrant a liberal approach for condonation. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the rule was discharged.

---