1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No.190 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. She filed CMA No. 2702 of 1982 before the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara. IA 1182 of 1982 was filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The petition was dismissed. Consequently the CMA was also dismissed.

2. The Sub Judge condoned the delay for the period from 26-11-82 to 1-12-82. But the petition was rejected on the ground that there was no explanation for the delay in re-presenting the appeal before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara on 4-12-1982.

3. CMA was filed before the District Court on 1-12-82. That was wrongly instituted in that court. It should have been filed before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. The District Court returned the appeal to the Sub Court on 3-12-83. Before the Sub Court the appeal was presented on 4-12-82. The learned Sub Judge held that even if the delay of 5 days is condoned no purpose will be served as there is no prayer to condone the delay after 1-12-1982.

4. The cardinal policy of the provision in S.14 of the Limitation Act is to furnish protection against the bar of limitation to a person who honestly and diligently solicits a trial on merits in