Assertion (A): Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 empowers the Court to admit a suit after the prescribed period if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not instituting the suit.
Reason (R): Even an appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.

Assertion (A) is false because it inaccurately states that Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the court to admit a suit after the prescribed period. In reality, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides the court with the discretion to admit appeals, applications, or petitions after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. However, it does not specifically pertain to suits. The assertion incorrectly broadens the scope of Section 5.

Reason (R) is true. The reason correctly explains the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the admission of appeals, applications, or petitions after the prescribed period if sufficient cause for the delay is demonstrated. This principle applies to appeals and other proceedings.

Given this interpretation, if most people are saying Option D, then Option D: (A) is false but (R) is true would be considered the correct answer based on the information provided.