ORDER 1. This appeal under Order 43 rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 8/2016, which was an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC. 2. The application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant, an owner of the offending vehicle, against the ex-parte award dated 13.7.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 15/2015. As there was a delay in filing the application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC, an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay was filed on the ground that his counsel did not inform the date on which he was proceeded ex parte. 3. The trial Court after recording evidence of the party found that the appellant has failed to establish the sufficient cause dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act; consequently, dismissed the application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC being barred by time. The trial Court found : ^^12- vkosnd Bkdqj flag ds mijksDr dFku ls gh ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd vkosnd Bkdqj flag ds fo#) yafcr nkf.Md izdj.k esa 'kq: ls var rd Jh ujsUnz f}osnh vf/koDrk fu;qDr Fks rFkk muds }kjk gh iSjoh dh xbZ gSA nkf.Md izdj.k esa vkosnd dh vksj ls Jh nsosUnz flag nkaxh vf/koDrk us dHkh iSjoh ugha dhA ,slh fLFkfr esa Jh nsosUnz flag nkaxh vf/koDrk }kjk eksVj;ku nq?kZVuk ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;s x, {kfriwfrZ ds izdj.k ls lacaf/kr dksbZ lwpuk vkosnd dks ugha nsuk vkSj vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh lwpuk nsuk vfo'oluh; izrhr gksrk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa iqf"Vdkjd lk{; dh vko';drk vuqHko gksrh gSA vkosnd }kjk crkbZ xbZ mijksDr dgkuh dh iqf"V Loa; Jh nsosUnz flag nkaxh vf/koDrk dj ldrs Fks] muls csgrj vU; dksbZ lk{kh ugha gks ldrkA ijUrq vkosnd dh vksj ls Jh nsosUnz flag nkaxh vf/koDrk dk ijh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA^^ 4. Though, true it may be that the limitation should be liberally construed. However, unless sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court is made out, limitation cannot be construed liberally. 5. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others : [ (2010)8 SCC 685 ], it has been observed by their Lordships : “25. Though, true it may be that the limitation should be liberally construed. However, unless sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court is made out, limitation cannot be construed liberally. 5. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others : [ (2010)8 SCC 685 ], it has been observed by their Lordships : “25. We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. 27. The application filed by the applicants lacks in details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex facie lack bona fide. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the Court to believe that the explanation rendered is not only true, but is worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. If it does not specify any of the enunciated ingredients of judicial pronouncements, then the application should be dismissed. On the other hand, if the application is bona fide and based upon true and plausible explanations, as well as reflects normal behaviour of a common prudent person on the part of the applicant, the Court would normally tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. On the other hand, if the application is bona fide and based upon true and plausible explanations, as well as reflects normal behaviour of a common prudent person on the part of the applicant, the Court would normally tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. Liberal construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the other party.” 6. In view whereof and the finding of the trial Court, no indulgence is caused. 7. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.