The respondent-landowners have not been called upon to refute or admit the allegations of concealment of facts attributed to some of them. Similarly, we have not asked the appellants to produce original records and documents to substantiate their allegation of concealment and suppression of material facts. We are conscious that entering into an arena of factual controversy at such an advanced stage of litigation, and that too without giving adequate opportunities to the parties can be a potential threat to the cause of justice. Simultaneously, we are satisfied that the appellants' contention in this regard cannot be brushed aside lightly. Without expressing any final definitive opinion on such allegations of concealment, we are of the considered view that the appellants have discharged a prima facie burden for the limited purpose of making out a case for condonation of delay in the cases mentioned in the appended which shall be read as a part of this judgment. We believe that a fact-finding exercise is necessary in these cases, and hence, there exist sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. The nature of relief to be eventually granted after condoning the delay, will be separately dealt with in Part E of this orderFirstly, this ground seeks to use events temporally subsequent to the expiry of the limitation period to justify the delay. To revisit Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the text of the statute provides that an appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period Hence, the appellants are required to explain that they were diligent during the prescribed period of limitation and could not file the appeal because of a sufficient cause arising within the prescribed period. This understanding is squarely covered by the case of Ajit Singh Thakur v. State of Gujarat,33 which had an analogous factual situation. The appellants in the cited case were accused of killing one Manilal and injuring Bhulabhai and others and were acquitted by the trial court.