1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT

Whether or not to apply the same standard in applying the " sufficient cause " test to all the litigants regardless of their personality in the said context is another?

Held that:- There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the " State " is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression " sufficient cause ". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court.