Guttal, J. - (1.)THE question in these petitions is whether the belief of a Defendant, the suit against whom has been dismissed, that she was not aggrieved and therefore need not prefer an appeal against the judgment of dismissal of the suit constitutes "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.)THREE suits, O.S. 105/1957, O.S. 111/1957 and O.S. 112/1957 were tried together by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Alleppey. The Petitioner Kumari Amma was the Defendant No. 6 in O.S. Nos. 105/1957 and 111/1957. She was the Defendant, No. 20 in O.S. No. 112/1957. Suit No. 105/1957 was for declaration of title of the Plaintiffs. O.S. 111/1957 was for maintenance and allotment of shares to the Plaintiffs. O.S. 112/1957 was for maintenance.
A.S. No. 146/1991 against the decree in O.S. 105/1957 by this very Petitioner was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law. A.S. No. 581/1992 is by this Petitioner against the decree in O.S. 112/1957. A.S. No. 584/1992, also by this Petitioner is against the decree in O.S. No. 111/1957. These appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. The delay is of 12 years, one month and 15 days. C.M.P No. 7885 of 1992 and C.M.P. No. 7898 of 1992, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are for condonation of the delay in filing A.S. Nos. 581/1992 and 584/1992 respectively. These C.M.Ps. were heard together as they raise common questions.

(3.)THE judgment and decrees appealed from are dated 24th July 1980. Application for copy of the judgment and decree, were filed on 31st July 1980. Till 1990 the trial Court did not supply copies of the judgment and decree. The Petitioner therefore represented her case to this Court on the administrative side on 10th September 1989. This Court directed her to file fresh application for copies of the judgments and decrees which she did on 14th June 1990 and received copies of the judgments and decrees in O.S. No. 105/1957 on 29th October 1990. She used these copies and filed A.S. No. 146 of 1991. The Petitioner did not apply for the copies of judgments and decrees in O.S. No. 111 of 1957 and O.S. No. 112 of 1957.