“8. xx xx It is undoubtedly true that in dealing with the question of condoning the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act the party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the, prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole period of delay, vide Sitaram Rancharan etc. v. M. N. Nagarshana & Others(1). However, it is not possible to lay down precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute 'sufficient cause' under S.5 of the Limitation Act. But those words should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial, justice when no negligence or any inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party, i.e., the delay in filing an appeal should not have been for. reasons which indicate the party's negligence in not taking necessary steps which he would have or should have taken. What would be such necessary steps will again depend upon. the circumstances of a particular case (vide State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, (1972) 2 SCR 874: (AIR 1972 SC 749) . Discretion is conferred on the Court before which an application for condoning delay is made and if the Court after keeping in view relevant principles exercises its discretion granting relief unless it is shown to be manifestly unjust or perverse, this Court would be loathe, to interfere with it.”
