V.K. Jhanji, J. - The present revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby application filed by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (Briefly `the Act') for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, was dismissed. Respondent Chander Krishan Mahajan filed a suit for declaration that he has been in possession of the disputed land measuring 7 marlas as a co-owner in the shamlat deh, in village Mamoon. The said suit was decreed on 31st of January, 1989. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge on 6th of May, 1989. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, was also filed. On contest by the plaintiff, delay was not condoned and consequently, the application as well as the appeal were dismissed. Petitioners have challenged the said order by way of present revision petition. 2. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. They had engaged a counsel and were contended with the knowledge that their interests will be amply safeguarded. However, their counsel did not convey them the decision of the suit and that resulted in delay, which in the circumstances should be condoned. He further submitted that the words `sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. In support of this argument, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and a judgment of this Court in Home Secretary to Govt. Punjab and others v. Sarwan Singh, 1992(1) S.C.T. 576 : 1992(1) R.R.R. 476 : 1992(1) SLR 624. 3. On the other hand, Mr. J.N. Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the respondent, contended that the present case is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to condonation of delay. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I find no merit in this revision petition. The petitioners in their application under Section 5 of the Act, have stated that they did not come to know about the decision of the case being simple villagers, not acquainted with the modalities of the litigation. In the application, it has further been stated that application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree was filed on 2nd of March, 1989, and when the certified copy was delivered, the appeal was filed four days, thereafter, and therefore, they are entitled to condonation of delay. However, the averments made in the application do not find support from the statement made by Sukhdev Singh, one of the petitioners, before the Court. In his statement, he has stated that he had been prosecuting the case on behalf of the petitioners, but the judgment was not pronounced in his presence. He instructed his lawyer to obtain a certified copy of judgment and decree, who assured him that the same will be sent to him as and when obtained. The copies were delivered to him in the beginning of May, 1989, and the appeal was filed 3-4 days thereafter. On perusal of the copies, he came to know the date of decision of the case, i.e. 31st of January, 1989. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not been attending the Court on each date of hearing, but attended the Court on four hearings. He admitted that all the petitioners are literate and know English language. With regard to his counsel, he stated that Shri S.C. Puri was conducting the case on their behalf. He was also a counsel in many other cases. He contacted his counsel only at the initial stages of the case. He further admitted that he did not make the payment of fee for obtaining the copies, and even did not know as to who applied for copies and obtained the same. Balwinder Kumar, Copyist, appeared as RW-1 and gave his statement. He stated that copies were applied for by one Balwant Kaur and after preparation of the copies, the same were delivered to her. Balwant Kaur is not a party to the litigation. Thus, from the reading of the statement, it is clear that the petitioners are not simple villagers as alleged in the application, but are literate and well-conversant with English language. Sukhdev Singh had been pursuing the case on behalf of the petitioners and had appeared only at the initial stages of the case. The petitioners neither cared to pursue the case, thereafter, nor did they try to find out the fate of their case. The application for obtaining the certified copies of judgment and decree was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. Copies were made available on 13th of March, 1989, but nobody collected the same till 30th of March, 1989. Even after receiving the copies on 30th of March, 1989, the appeal was filed on 6th of May, 1989. No explanation whatsoever has been given either in the statement or in the application filed by the petitioners, as to what they had been doing between 13th of March, 1989 to 6th of May, 1989. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the words `sufficient cause' should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or any inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. The expiry of time arising due to negligence of a party cannot be said to be beyond the control of the party and will not be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act. Thus, I find that the petitioners have not been able to make out any ground to interfere, in the well-reasoned order of the Additional District Judge, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. I am also not impressed with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay be condoned on payment of costs. It is not in every case that delay is to be condoned on payment of costs. As already noticed, the petitioners throughout were negligent and did not care to pursue the case. They have also not offered any explanation for not attending the Court on the relevant dates and, thus, cannot be granted indulgence even on payment of costs. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.