complaint filed beyond stipulated period, if sufficient cause is shown in not making complaint within the period prescribed. He would submit that in the impugned order, Judicial Magistrate had recorded that Petitioner suffered from Viral fever and dissentry and only due to the said reason, complaint was not filed within the period stipulated, while condoning delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. He would submit that Section 142(1)(b) confers Judicial Magistrate with discretion to condone delay if satisfied that “sufficient cause” did exist. He would also submit that power to condone delay both under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is premised on “sufficient cause” being shown for not filing a compliant or an applicaton or appeal within the prescribed period. In any event, he would submit that a careful persual of impugned order would reveal that though petition inadvertently referred to Section 5 of Limitation Act, however, Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay in exercise of his discretion conferred in terms of Secion 142(1)(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. He would submit that mere mis-quoting or non-quoting of provision might not cause any prejudice to the other side.
