' AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14-5-2007 rendered by Additional District Judge, Lasbela at Hub in Civil Appeal No,4 of 2007 whereby appeal filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30-12-2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Hub was dismissed on point of limitation.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hub which suit was contested by respondent. The learned Senior Civil Judge after striking issues in the light of pleadings of parties and recording evidence pro and contra partly decreed the suit in the following terms: "The plaintiff is directed to approach M.D. LIEDA and submit application for restoration of electricity supply besides M.D. LIEDA is required to take matter and make concession, cooperation to plaintiff, if there exist any incentive by Government or any other leniency may be done in favour of plaintiff and matter be resolved within one month after that N.O.C. Be issued to the plaintiff as per law. The suit is decreed reasons cited above."
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents.
Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that in the light of judgment and decree, dated 30-12-2006 petitioner wrote a letter to M.D. LIEDA on 25-1-2007 for resolution of dispute which was replied on 30-3-2007 directing the petitioner to sign a new memorandum of understanding stipulating new conditions which letter was received by petitioner on 2-4-2007 whereafter appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay but the learned Additional District Judge failed to take into consideration the grounds taken in application and dismissed the appeal being barred by time. He further argued that the petitioner was misled by decree of Court and delay was liable to be condoned as sufficient cause was shown for condonation.
' On the other hand learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the judgment and decree passed by trial Court was not challenged within the stipulated period, as such, appeal was rightly dismissed. He further argued that in fact judgment and decree was accepted by petitioner by filing application before respondent for issuance of N.O.C. Which was to be granted after compliance of rules and policy of respondent.
4. I have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The petitioner along with appeal filed an application for condonation of delay mainly on the ground that in.The light of judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge he approached respondent for redressal of his grievances but without any result, however, such ground did not find favour with the learned Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed being barred by time. It may be observed that the Courts have been empowered to extend period of limitation in appeal, if the appellant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within the period of limitation. The word "sufficient cause" has not been defined, however, it has received attention of Courts and the consensus is that a genuine or good cause is sufficient cause which should receive a liberal construction so as to advance cause of substantial justice. It may further be noted that sufficient cause is a question of fact which varies from case to case and has to be determined by a reference to all circumstances of each particular case with a view to secure furtherance of justice. In the instant case petitioner in his plaint prayed for declaring him allottee of suit plot and entitled to receive N.O.C. Of no dues after resolution of electricity bills and for directing the defendants to issue N.O.C. The learned Senior Civil Judge partly decreed the suit directing the respondents to resolve the matter within one month after that N.O.C.
Be issued to plaintiff as per law, therefore, the petitioner has no occasion to have challenged the decree as to some extent relief was granted to him but on presentation of application respondent imposed condition of signing a new memorandum of understanding stipulating new terms and conditions for retention of suit plot which terms and conditions were not acceptable to petitioner, as such, he preferred appeal against the judgment and decree within 30 days of receipt of reply from respondent which cause in my considered view was sufficient for condonation of delay but the learned Additional District Judge without dilating upon such cause rejected the same by observing that the ground taken in application is not appealable to mind by over looking the correspondence made between the parties in the light of judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge.
' In view of what has been discussed above, I am inclined to set aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Hub and condone the delay by allowing application for condonation of delay with the result that the appeal would be deemed to be pending before the Additional District Judge, Hub who is directed to decide the same on merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.