A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) "thy shall be vigilant in pursuing the litigation with unflinching devotion and duly, even though you might have lost your father in an automobile accidentand in the same accident your mother might have been seriously injured and may be unconscious on account of the accidental injury till the date of submitting the application for selling aside abetment and for condonation of delay. "is this the command of law? Is the rigour of law so much light and iron clad thai one is required lo raise himself to the level of pcrfccl detachment from the worldly affairs and devote himself religiously to the affairs of liligalion. In short, what is necessary -- presence of positive vigilance or absence of negligence on the pan of the applicant? Such are the questions which arise in these two Appeals from Orders which have remained submerged for nearly a decade in the heaps of dockets which have piled up in the Court. ( 2 ) IN both appeals from orders identical questions of facts and law arise. Hence at the request of and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, both the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) ONE Patel Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai filed Special Civil Suit No. 5/76 in the court of civil Judge (S. D.) Nadiad and prayed that a decree against the defendants be passed for an amount of Rs. 11,680/- with 9 per cent interest. The suit was filed by him contending that the defendants had encroached upon the part of the land belonging to him and that he was entitled to receive the amount of compensation for the wrongful user of the land. . Another suit being special Civil Suit No. 7/73 was also filed by him in the same court for decree against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 14,400/- contending that the defendants had encroached upon part of the land belonging to him and that he was entitled to receive the amount of compensation for the wrongful user of the land. ( 4 ) IT appears that after the filing of suits, the plaintiff Patel Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai had been to Nairobi. There he met with an automobile accident some time in the year 1978. ( 4 ) IT appears that after the filing of suits, the plaintiff Patel Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai had been to Nairobi. There he met with an automobile accident some time in the year 1978. On account of the accidental injuries, he died on september 23, 1978. The plaintiff left behind him his widow Chanchalben Chimanbhai Patel, two sons, Ajilbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Sir- ishbhai Chimanbhai Patel and one daughter purnimaben Chimanbhai Patel. ( 5 ) THE appellant herein filed an application ex. 23 in Special Civil Suit No. 5/76 and another application Ex. 49 in special Civil Suit no. 7/73 for permitting him to join as plaintiff in place of his father and pursue the suits. Both the applications were submitted on March 12,1979. In the applications he submitted that his father has executed a will on May 13,1978 and according to the will he was entitled to receive all the properties of the deceased and as per the will executed by the deceased plaintiff, he was the only legal heir and representative of the deceased competent to pursue the litigation. He also submitted that when the plaintiff met with the accident, his mother also received injuries in the same accident and she was unconscious even on the date of the application. It was also submitted in the application that he usually resided at madras and that there was another litigation pending in the High Court which arose out of a decision rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 4/70. Since the details with regard to all these facts were to be collected and since his mother was injured and unconscious even on the date of the application, he could not file application in time and therefore he prayed for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff died on September 21, 1978. The application for condoning the delay and for setting aside the abatement was filed on march 12, 1979. As per Article 120 of the limitation Act, 1963, an application for bringing the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on record is required to be filed within ninety days from the date of death of the plaintiff. As provided under Article 121 of the Limitation Act 1963 an application for setting aside the abatement is required to be filed within sixty days from the date of abatement. As provided under Article 121 of the Limitation Act 1963 an application for setting aside the abatement is required to be filed within sixty days from the date of abatement. In view of these provisions, the application for setting aside the abatement should have been submitted by the applicant on or before February 20,1979. Thus there was delay of about twenty days in filling the application for setting aside the abatement. ( 7 ) THE learned trial court Judge held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and "it cannot be liberally viewed". In the opinion of the learned Trial Court Judge, the applicant was aware of the proceedings in as much as the applicant used to come to India and he was doing business in Madras and also he was managing the properties of his father. In his opinion "he ought to have been vigilant for his own rights". The learned Judge, therefore, refused to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement, and also rejected the prayer to set aside the abatement. . ( 8 ) IT is unfortunate that the learned trial court Judge took hyper-technical view of the matter and that too against the well established principles of law laid down by the Supreme court and this High Court. Under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 9 of C. P. Code, an application for setting aside the abatement of suit is required to be filed by any person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. As stated here-in-abovc, such an application is to be submitted within sixty days from the date of abatement. As per the provisions of Order 22, Rule 9 (3) of C. P. code, in case of delay in filing such an application, provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 are applicable. Despite this clear provisions of law, the learned trial court Judge did not even refer to the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and the settled principles of law indicating as to how the expression "sufficient cause" is to be understood. The expression "sufficient cause" has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice, (see Karim Abdulla v. Bai Hoorbai reported in 16 G. L. R. p. 835 ). The expression "sufficient cause" has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice, (see Karim Abdulla v. Bai Hoorbai reported in 16 G. L. R. p. 835 ). As far back as the year 1964 in the case of Union of India v. Ram charan, reported in AIR 1964 SC page 215, the supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment inter alia observed as follows :"it would be futile to lay down precisely as to what considerations would constitute sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement or for the plaintiffs not applying to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on the record or would be held to be sufficient cause for not making an application to set aside the abatement within the time prescribed. But it can be said that the delay in making of such applications should not be for reasons which indicate the plaintiffs negligence in not taking certain steps which he could have and should have taken. What would be such necessary steps would again depend on the circumstances of a particular case and each case will have to be decided by the court on the facts and circumstances of the case. " ( 9 ) IN view of the decision of the Supreme court, it was incumbent upon the trial court to take into consideration the cause advanced by the appellant. The trial court should have examined the question as to whether delay in submitting the application for setting aside the abatement was on account of negligence of the applicant? not presence of positive vigilance but absence of negligence is to be established by the applicant. The appellant staled in the application itself that his mother had also met with the accident along with his father, and the mother was unconscious even on the date of application. This fact has not been controverted by the other side. Yet, the learned Judge has not even referred to this circumstance in his order. Similarly there is nothing to indicate that the applicant-appellant was negligent in not taking certain steps which he could have and should have taken. On the contrary there is sufficient indication otherwise. This fact has not been controverted by the other side. Yet, the learned Judge has not even referred to this circumstance in his order. Similarly there is nothing to indicate that the applicant-appellant was negligent in not taking certain steps which he could have and should have taken. On the contrary there is sufficient indication otherwise. Ordinarily a person who has lost his father in an automobile accident and whose mother has also been seriously injured in the same accident and was unconscious till the date of application may not be in a position to take care of pending litigations. To expect that such person should not care for the ailing mother but should rush to the office of the lawyer and to the court for submitting application to the court for setting aside the abatement and for permitting him to pursue the litigations would not only be unjust and improper but it may also be considered to be inhuman and cruel too. Even if technical view of the matter is taken, such an approach cannot be countenanced. ( 10 ) IN a recent decision of the Supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, ananlnag v. Kaliji reported in AIR 1987 Supreme court, page 1353, the Supreme Court has inter alia observed that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ,is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends or justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. Thereafter the supreme Court indicated the following reasons why, on principle, liberal approach is being adopted :-" 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being- thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "every days delay must be explained" docs not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. 3. "every days delay must be explained" docs not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. " ( 11 ) IN the instant case there was delay of about 20 days in filing application for setting aside abatement. The application itself discloses that there were reasons for the applicant to remain sufficiently occupied and engaged after the health of his mother. No one can expect that the court proceedings could be attended to so much zealously and with exact punctuality that even the care of and service to ailing mother can be relegated to lower priorities. Whenever there is question of life and death of ones mother on one hand and little delay in approaching the court with necessary application for condonation of delay on the other hand, then no further explanation is required for showing that there was sufficicntcausc for delay. The fact that the applicants father and mother both received accidental injuries and the father died in the accident and the mother was unconscious even on the date of submitting application cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to be cause which is not sufficient cause as required for the purposes of condonation of delay in filing an application in court. In such circumstances it would be highly improper to impute negligence to a person who must have been overtaken by the grief of loss of his father and must be praying god for the recovery of his mother. Such an approach is highly unreasonable and perverse. In such circumstances it would be highly improper to impute negligence to a person who must have been overtaken by the grief of loss of his father and must be praying god for the recovery of his mother. Such an approach is highly unreasonable and perverse. In such cases as laid down by the Supreme Court liberal approach has got to be adopted so as to advance the cause of justice. In this view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court Judge cannot be sustained and both the appeals from orders are required to be allowed. ( 12 ) IN the result, both the appeals from orders are allowed. The order passed by the trial court below Ex. 23 in Special Civil Suit No. 5/76 and the order passed below Ex. 49 in special civil Suit No. 7/73 arc hereby quashed and set aside. The abatement of Special Civil Suit No. 5/ 76 and Special Civil Suit No. 7/73 of the court of civil Judge (S. D.), Nadiad are set aside. In each case the appellant-applicant is permitted to join himself as heir and legal representative of deceased patel Chimanbhai Chhaganbhai, original plaintiff. The trial court shall take on its register both the suits at its original numbers and shall proceed further with the same in accordance with law as cxpeditiously as possiblc. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals Allowed. .