(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1580 of 2001 in O.S.No.154 of 1989 on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Pondicherry, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 1711 days.
(2.) THE petitioners being the plaintiffs in the suit which was filed for partition and separate possession and had filed an application earlier seeking to amend the plaint. THE said application was dismissed by the Court below and being aggrieved against the same, a revision was filed before this Hon'ble Court in C.R.P. THE said revision was also dismissed as early as on 18.12.1997. THE revision petition was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court, since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was not able to take appropriate steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased/first respondent. It has been specifically stated in the said order that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that he was not able to get the particulars about the legal representatives of the first respondent as the petitioners were living outside the country.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195 [RAM NATH SAO v. GOBARDHAN SAO] and submitted that the liberal approach will have to be made by the Court while interpreting the sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement and to bring on record of the deceased parties. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the learned counsel is not applicable to the present case on hand, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of an illiterate person who was not properly advised to file an application within time. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the question of sufficiency of the cause will have to be decided on the facts of each case.