heirs of the original plaintiff in 2019 pending and deciding the subsequent application filed by respondent No.1 in October 2021 within a period of six months. We do not wish to say anything more on it. 11. Though, it was urged by the appellants before the High Court that respondent No.1 was totally a stranger and the reasons given for condonation of delay did not constitute the “sufficient cause”, and though the judgments of this Court were relied upon to contend as to why the application ought not to have been allowed by the trial court, the High Court has totally ignored the same. 912. In light of the view taken by us, though it is not necessary for us to consider in detail as to whether the reasoning given by the trial court and the High Court as to whether respondent No.1 had made out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay is correct or not, we are of the prima facie view that the reasoning given by the trial court as well as the High Court for condoning such an inordinate