In the present case, the petitioner/third defendant/Wakf Board, though engaged an advocate, did not file written statement even at a belated stage where the entire Trial was over, except pronouncing judgment. Moreover the reason assigned by the petitioner to set-aside such an order is bifurcation of State, which is highly improper and it is not sufficient cause. It is difficult to hold that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient cause, which is beyond the control of the petitioner to set-aside such an order. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined anywhere, but it can be construed that, in case, which is beyond the control of the petitioner, it can be said to be sufficient cause depending upon the circumstances of the case. Time and again, the Courts held that the word ‘sufficient cause’ has to be construed liberally, to do substantial justice to the parties and shall not adopt pedantic approach while considering any cause as ‘sufficient cause’. No doubt, the law declared by the Apex Court and the other Courts reiterated the same principle. But, in the present case, the cause shown by the petitioner is that due to bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into State of Telangana and residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner/third defendant/Wakf Board could not file written statement. The order was passed long prior to bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, such cause can never be construed as ‘sufficient cause’, since it was not beyond control and nothing prevented the petitioner to file written statement before bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two states, i.e State of Telangana and residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
