Judgment 1. Mysore Urban Development Authority and its Land Acquisition Officer have filed this petition to review the order passed in W.P.No.24994/2011. Said writ petition was allowed and the impugned endorsement therein was quashed and a mandamus was issued on 02.01.2012. On 02.04.2013, this review petition was filed. Thus, there is delay of 416 days in filing this petition. Seeking condonation, I.A.No.2/2013 was filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since I.A.No.2 was opposed by filing of statement of objections, the first question is, whether the petitioner have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. 2. To decide the said question, it is necessary to have regard to the matter involved in W.P.No.24994/2011. A preliminary notification dated 01.04.1981 was issued, proposing to acquire land measuring 8 acres 25 guntas in Sy.Nos.257/1 and 258/2 of Hinkal Village, Mysuru Taluk. A final declaration was issued and published on 31.03.1984, to the effect that amongst several other lands, the said lands are needed for public purpose. An award determining the compensation payable was passed on 25.04.1987. Respondent No.1 being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.258/2, measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, Hinkal Village, Mysuru Taluk, acquired for a development scheme of MUDA, made an application to allot site/s under incentive scheme. The request having been turned down and an endorsement dated 22.09.2010 having been issued, W.P. No. 24994/2011 was filed. The respondent therein, having not filed any statement of objections, by noticing that a scheme has been formulated vide Annexure-R, for allotment of site/s on incentive basis, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned endorsement was quashed and a mandamus to reconsider the application submitted for allotment of site/s, in terms of the resolution dated 22.10.1990 vide Annexure-R was issued. 3. First respondent having obtained allotment of site Nos. 3. First respondent having obtained allotment of site Nos. 177, 179 and 180, each measuring 40 ft x 60 ft, situated at Vijayanagar 3rd Stage, ‘E’ Block, on 26.12.1994, in terms of a judgment and award passed in LAC No. 345/1987 and also in terms of resolution dated 22.10.1990 and having suppressed the said fact in W.P. No. 24994/2011 and in view of filing of CCC No. 1162/2012 and in the anxiety of complying the order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 24994/2011, the petitioners having issued an Official Memorandum dated 05.02.2013, thereby, proposing to allot 2 sites, which was objected to by respondent No.1 herein i.e., in CCC No. 1162/2012 and by an order dated 11.02.2013, the petitioners having been directed to clarify about the compliance, if any and in what manner, by way of filing an affidavit, the petitioners, while searching the records, having found a file relating to the allotment of said 3 sites on 26.12.1994, filed this review petition. 4. Sri P.K. Vivekananda, learned advocate, contended that there being suppression of material facts and the petitioners having not approached this court with clean hands and the file relating to allotment of 3 sites having been traced i.e., when attempts were made to file affidavit pursuant to an order dated 11.02.2013 passed in CCC No. 1162/2012, submitted that, public interest would greatly suffer, if delay in filing this petition is not condoned. He submitted that the petitioners have not gained in any manner on account of the delay and there being no third party rights coming into existence after passing of order dated 02.01.2012, allowing W.P. No. 24994/2011, respondent No.1 would not suffer any prejudice, by condoning the delay and in deciding the review petition on its merit. 5. Sri Manmohan P.N., learned advocate for respondent No.1, on the other hand submitted that the delay being inordinate and the petitioners being inactive or negligent and there being no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, IA.No.2 is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit and consequently, the review petition is liable to be rejected for having not been filed within the prescribed period. 6. At this stage, point for consideration is whether there is sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay in filing this review petition? 7. 6. At this stage, point for consideration is whether there is sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay in filing this review petition? 7. It is trite that in construing “sufficient cause”, appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts must give a liberal construction to the said words and each case has to be judged in the context of the subject matter involved. Discretion has been conferred by the Legislature on the Court/s in the matter of condoning the delay, with a view to advance substantial justice, particularly, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bonafides is imputable to the applicant. 8. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bahadur Singh and Others, (1983) 3 SCC 73 , while dealing with the question of laches, in approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, Apex Court has held as follows: “Not that the departmental authorities charged with a duty to implement the law should not be vigilant’ but one aspect cannot be overlooked that a departmental authority may delay the moving of higher court for oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which is also explainable. These are relevant consideration which must enter judicial verdict before rejecting such cause on the ground of delay.” 9. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , in the matter of finding out the existence of “sufficient cause”, Apex Court has held that the Courts should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach to do substantial justice to parties for disposing of matters on “merits”. It was held that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature in Section 5 of the Act, though adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice, the message having not percolated down to all other Courts in the hierarchy, the principles to be adopted were laid down. 10. In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , it was held that, “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally and the acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay being irrelevant. 10. In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , it was held that, “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally and the acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay being irrelevant. It was made clear that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, courts should normally condone the delay. 11. In the statement of objections filed, respondent No.1 has not denied the allotment of residential sites bearing Nos.177, 179 and 180 at Vijayanagar 3rd Stage, ‘E’ Block, by MUDA, on 26.12.1994, in pursuance of the judgment passed in LAC No.345/1987 and also in terms of resolution of MUDA dated 22.10.1990. No material was placed on record by respondent No.1, that the petitioners are guilty of negligence or inaction i.e., after allowing W.P. No. 24994/2011. The petitioners being an impersonal body, do not move like a private litigant. If the allegation of suppression of facts and this Court having been approached inequitably, as has been alleged in this petition is established, respondent No.1 would not be entitled to seek the sustaining of order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 24994/2011. But for the affidavit directed to be filed in CCC 1162/2012 vide order dated 11.02.2013, the petitioners would not have undertaken to trace the files relating to the allotment of the said 3 sites and filed this review petition. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there is neither any negligence nor any inaction muchless want of bonafides on the part of the petitioners, in filing this review petition, within the period allowed under law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient cause for the belated seeking of review of order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 24994/2011. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and therefore, deserves to be condoned. Consequently, I.A. No. 2 is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 13. Sri T.P. Vivenkananda, learned advocate, contended that there being suppression of the material fact of allotment of 3 sites, totally measuring 7200 square feet and W.P.No.24994/2011 having been decided in the absence of a counter, a case has been made out to review the order dated 02.01.2012, allowing the writ petition. 13. Sri T.P. Vivenkananda, learned advocate, contended that there being suppression of the material fact of allotment of 3 sites, totally measuring 7200 square feet and W.P.No.24994/2011 having been decided in the absence of a counter, a case has been made out to review the order dated 02.01.2012, allowing the writ petition. He submitted that there being discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced at the time when W.P. No. 24994/2011 was decided and as no relief can be granted in the said writ petition, this petition may be allowed and the writ petition be decided by considering the allotment of 3 residential sites made on 26.12.1994. 14. Sri Manmohan P.N., learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1, did not dispute the fact that there is no reference to the allotment of 3 residential sites made on 26.12.1994, in W.P. No. 24994/2011 or the said aspect having been pointed out for consideration and decision i.e. while bearing and allowing writ petition on 02.01.2012. 15. It is trite that where a person either by suppression of fact or by misrepresentation has obtained an order, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as the same would amount to playing fraud on the Court. 16. In A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. GAR Re-Rolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647 and State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , Apex Court has held that, a writ court while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of legal fraud, as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. 17. In Shrisht Dhawan vs. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC 534 , Apex Court has held as follows: “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 18. An act of fraud on Court, when established, should be viewed seriously. Fraud being anathema to all equitable principles and any affair trained with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine. 19. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 18. An act of fraud on Court, when established, should be viewed seriously. Fraud being anathema to all equitable principles and any affair trained with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine. 19. Since the petitioners herein are contending that there is suppression of material facts in W.P. No. 24994/2011 and as they have materials in proof of the allotment of said 3 residential sites as having been made in terms of resolution dated 22.10.1990, there being discovery of new fact and evidence, I deem it just to grant the review of the order sought in this petition. In the result, review petition is allowed. Order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 24994/2011 is recalled. W.P. No. 24994/2011 is restored for consideration and decision afresh. List the said petition on 04.06.2015 for further hearing in ‘B’ group. No costs.