ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. Vs. SMT. GEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S. Malode, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the main contesting parties. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) In support of the contentions raised in this application, the applicants have filed on record additional affidavit vide stamp No. 10700/2017.

(3.) According to Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for the applicants, the expression sufficient cause used in Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is required to be construed liberally by adopting a practical and pragmatic approach while avoiding pedantic and technical approach. He places his reliance upon the view taken by this Court in the case of Ashok Maheshkar Vs. Gangadhar Phadnavis and others, reported in 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 497. According to Shri S. Malode, no sufficient cause is disclosed either in the application or in the additional affidavit.