1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgement dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Misc. Application No. 155 of 2011.
2.0 The petitioner No.1 had applied for loan to the respondent and the petitioner No.2 was guarantor. The respondent had advanced a loan of Rs.2,00,000/to the petitioner, for which the petitioner had given a promissory note and mortgage deed to the said effect. The respondent had debited the account of the petitioner with an amount of Rs.278253/ along with interest. The respondent had filed suit being Summary Suit No. 425 of 2007 for recovery of the amount before the learned Board of Nominees, Mehsana and a conditional order has been passed wherein the petitioners have been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 90000/.
The said suit has been decreed in favour of the Respondent. The respondent thereafter filed and Execution Petition No. 3 of 2010 before the Civil Judge, Patan.
2.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Board of Nominee, Mehsana, the petitioners have preferred an appeal along with stay application and application for delay condonation being Misc. Civil Application No. 155 of 2011 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonaiton of delay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3.0 Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the relevant documents. It is well settled position of law that the expression “sufficient cause” is to be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, particularly, when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. Refusing to condone delay may result into meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. In any case, if delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Ordinarily, delay should be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The above view is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag versus Katiji reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353.
4.0 In the premises aforesaid, the impugned order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal will be heard on merits by the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the matter on merits.
5.0 Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*