2025:JHHC:25748 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.236 of 2022 With I.A. No.4256 of 2024 ------ 1. Raj Mohan Prasad Gupta, son of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of Village Undhan, P.O. Raikera via Manoharpur, P.O. and P.S. Manoharpur, District Singhbhum West 2. Ganouri Prasad Gupta, son of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of Village Undhan, P.O. Raikera via Manoharpur, P.O. and P.S. Manoharpur, District Singhbhum West 3. Ramesh Prasad Gupta, son of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of C/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta, Bus Stand, Sundergarh, P.O. & P.S. Sundergarh, District Sundergarh .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Raj Kumar Gupta, son of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of C/o Dharmendra Mahanto, Ward No.7, At P.O. and P.S. Barbil, District Keonjhar (Odisha) 2. Urmila Devi, wife of Late Yogesh Prasad Gupta, daughter of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of Mograpalli, P.O. and P.S. Kharia Road, District Kalahandi (Odisha) 3. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Mohan Lal Gupta, daughter of Late Lakshman Sahu, resident of Punjabi Para, P.O. and P.S. Barbil, District Keonjhar (Odisha) 4. Sangita Devi, wife of Sukhdeo Prasad Gupta, daughter of Late lakshman Sahu, resident of near Radha Krishna Mandir, Kasinga, P.O. and P.S. Kasinga, District Kalahandi (Odisha) .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate ------ Order No.09 / Dated : 27.08.2025 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 2025:JHHC:25748 2 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. 6. In the present case, the appellants have miserably failed to make out any plausible sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is apparent that a whopping delay of 2452 days is sought to condone on the ground that one senior conducting counsel, had died therefore, the appellants were blissfully ignorant about the result of the case for more than six years. Even the name 2025:JHHC:25748 3 of the counsel has not been disclosed, who had conducted the case and died resulting in the delay. But even before the death of the counsel, show cause was not filed before the Probate Court, for contesting the case for grant of probate. What prevented them to contest the probate application by filing their show cause, is also not disclosed. As the parties had appeared, therefore, non-appearance of the counsel cannot be said to render the proceeding ex-parte. The appellants could have engaged another pleader, but none was engaged within a reasonable time. 7. This Court is of the view that the appellants have failed to disclose any sufficient cause, for condonation of the delay in preferring the present appeal. Interlocutory application (I.A. No.4256 of 2024) for condonation of delay accordingly fails. Consequently Misc. Appeal No.236 of 2022 is dismissed as barred by limitation. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit