In *G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897*, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. What was the holding?

1. ***G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897*** held that the expression '**sufficient cause**' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must receive a **LIBERAL construction so as to advance substantial justice**. 2. **'Generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.'** 3. Statute of limitation has left the concept of 'sufficient cause' deliberately undefined, leaving the Court a well-intentioned discretion (*R B Ramlingam v. R B Bhvansewari (2009) 2 SCC 689*). 4. Option A states the opposite of the actual rule; options C and D invent unrelated constraints. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 7, *G. Ramegowda* box, p. 156._