Judgment 1. This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 13-12-1984 passed by Shree K.C.Prasad, Additional District Judge, Vth Court, Gaya, in Letter of Administration Case No. 9 of 1977, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below raised the valuation of the suit for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed thereto from Rs. 8,000.00 to Rs. 89, 700.00 . 2. This application was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. By an order dated 7-9-1987, this Court directed that the question of limitation be also considered at the time of the hearing of the civil revision application. It appears that after the impugned order was passed on 13-12-1984, the aforementioned suit was dismissed for default on 19-12-1984. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for restoration which was registered as miscellaneous case. The said application was filed on 18-1-1985 which was allowed, by an order dated 16-8-1985. After the restoration of the aforementioned suit, the petitioner has filed the instant application on 17-10-1985. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has relied upon Mahant Goswami Krishnadevanand Ramji V/s. Mahant Kapildeo Ramji reported in AIR 1942 Pat 251 and submitted that the practice of this Court is not to entertain any civil revision application after the expiry of 90 days. In my opinion, in view of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the said decision cannot be relied upon by me. It is now well settled that a rule of practice cannot be exalted in a rule of limitation vide Santimay Dey V/s. Suraiya Properties (P.) Ltd. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 159 : ( AIR 1978 SC 1409 ). Recently the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantang V/s. Mst. Katiji reported in (1987) 1 Lab LJ 500: ( AIR 1987 SC 1353 ), has categorically held that S.5 of the Limitation Act enables the Court to do substantial justice disposing of the matters on merits. It was further held that "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice. 4. It was further held that "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice. 4. In this view of the matter as also in view of the fact that in my opinion as the petitioner could not have approached this Court earlier against the impugned order dated 13-12-1984 because of the intervening circumstances that the suit has been dismissed for default, in my opinion, he has made out a sufficient cause for filing this application after the expiry of the period of limitation. The delay in filing the said application is, therefore, condoned. 5. Coming now the merits of the case it appears that the learned Court below has raised the valuation inter alia on the ground that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not raise any objection whatsoever. From the impugned order itself it appears that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the application filed on behalf of the original caveat or in the matter of increase in the valuation. The learned Court below has not considered the said rejoinder at all. Further, no evidence has been adduced by the parties with regard to the actual valuation of the land in question. From a perusal of the order dated 21-4-1976 passed in title suit No. 1 of 1985 which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Vth Court, at Gaya itself it appears that the valuation of the properties in the suit in a probate case was fixed at Rs. 22,500.00 . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further drawn my attention to a certificate granted by Shri Nawal Kishore Singh. Advocate on 1-10-1985 which, is contained in Annexure-3 to the petition from which it appears that he never consented or agreed upon the valuation of the lands to be at Rs. 89,700.00 as mentioned by the learned Court below. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Court below should now hear the parties afresh and allow them to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims in relation to the valuation of the suit and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Court below should now hear the parties afresh and allow them to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims in relation to the valuation of the suit and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, this civil revision is allowed but in the facts and the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed