Liberal construction of sufficient cause upheld for delay in setting aside abatement after a plausible explanation was shown.

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act requires "sufficient cause" to be construed liberally so that substantial justice is advanced, and a plausible explanation for delay should not be rejected on an unduly exacting standard. The delay in applying to set aside abatement was explained by the absence of the plaintiff who had conduct of the suit and the time reasonably needed for communication between the plaintiff and solicitors after discovery of the executors. The appellate court found no improper exercise of discretion by the trial judge and upheld the order setting aside the abatement.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in applying to set aside abatement and whether the discretionary order condoning the delay should be interfered with.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the absence of the plaintiff who had the conduct of the suit and by the time reasonably required for the solicitors and the plaintiff to communicate after discovery of the executors. The expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, and the Court should not apply an unduly exacting standard where the facts disclose a plausible explanation. The appellate Court was not persuaded that the trial Judge had exercised his discretion on an improper basis.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was held to exist, and the order setting aside the abatement was upheld.

---