RANCHI, India, Sept. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 27:

1.Instant appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed in Probate Case No.4 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the probate has been granted on a WILL dated 05.12.2006 executed in favour of Raj Kumar Gupta by his mother- Late Surjee Debi.

2. Petitioners are the brothers of the legatee, who were impleaded in probate case as opposite party nos.1 - 3. Sisters of the legatee opposite party nos.4 - 6, have not preferred appeal against the grant of probate.

3. There is a delay of 2452 days in preferring the instant appeal for which I.A. No.4256 of 2024, has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring the instant appeal.

4. It is argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants that delay was not intentional, but resulted on account of the death of the senior conducting counsel on behalf of the appellants sometimes in the month of January, 2013, therefore, no steps could be taken on behalf of the appellants before the trial Court. Requisite information was not given and he had also stopped pursuing the case, which will be apparent from the impugned order at para-9, wherein it has stated that although the opposite parties had appeared before the Probate Court, and as they stopped taking any step, therefore, ex-parte proceeding was drawn.

5. Principles for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been succinctly laid down in GMG Engg. Industries v. Issa Green Power Solution, (2015) 15 SCC 659,

7. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned. The discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is not to be exercised in any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. The true test is to see whether the applicant has acted with due diligence.

Basawaraj & Another v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81

9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfEECuAn%2Ft%2Bnvf09HC3JnTexQ5Ct%2BgyLeQm3VLMkAvQPF&caseno=MA/236/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010401342022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.