(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby application filed by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (Briefly 'the Act') for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, was dismissed. Respondent Chander Krishan Mahajan filed a suit for declaration that he has been in possession of the disputed land measuring 7 marlas as a co-owner in the shamlat deh, in village Mamoon. The said suit was decreed on 31st of January, 1989. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge on 6th of May, 1989. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was also filed. On contest by the plaintiff, delay was not condoned and consequently, the application as well as the appeal were dismissed. Petitioners have challenged the said order by way of present revision petition.
(2.) Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. They had engaged a counsel and were contended with the knowledge that their interests will be amply safeguarded. However, their counsel did not convey them the decision of the suit and that resulted in delay, which in the circumstances should be condoned. He further submitted that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. In support of this argument, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 and a judgment of this Court in Home Secretary to Govt. Punjab and others v. Sarwan Singh, 1992 1 SCT 576.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. J.N. Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the respondent, contended that the present case is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to condonation of delay.