This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2003 passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.9994 of 2000 in O.S.No.8575 of 1996, condoning the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to restore the Suit in O.S.No.8575 of 1996, which has been dismissed for default. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2. The Plaintiff was the Company Executive of the First Defendant Company. Challenging the Notice of Revocation dated 24.04.1992 issued by the Board of Directors and the Second Defendant Chairman, revoking the services of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration, declaring that the alleged revocation of his office of Managing Director of the Defendant Company is invalid, ineffective and void and that he has been and he continues to be the Managing Director of the First Defendant Company. The Suit was originally filed in May 1992 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been enhanced in 1996, the Suit in C.S.No.614 of 1992 was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.8575 of 1996. Due to the non-appearance of the Plaintiff, the Suit was dismissed for default on 16.06.1997.

3. I.A.No.9994 of 2000:- The Respondent / Plaintiff has filed this Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application for restoration of the Suit. According to the Plaintiff, C.S.No.614 of 1992 was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and after transfer, no notice was issued to him from the City Civil Court, Chennai and hence, he could not make representation in the Suit. According to him, his non-appearance on 16.06.1997 was neither wanton nor wilful and hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Application to restore the Suit setting aside the order of dismissal of the Suit. This Application has been filed to condone the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit.

4. The Application was resisted by the Revision Petitioners / Defendants contending that it is the duty of the counsel and the parties to the Suit to follow their cases diligently. The Plaintiff has slept over for a long number of years and it is not open to him to file Application to restore the Suit at the belated stage. The inordinate delay of 1008 days has not been sufficiently explained and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.

5. Upon consideration of the averments in the Affidavit, learned Assistant Judge allowed the Application on the ground that opportunity is to be given to the Plaintiff to put forth his case. Holding that in the interest of justice, delay is to be condoned, learned Assistant Judge allowed the Application.

6. Aggrieved over the condoning of delay of 1008 days, the Defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that it is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff and his Counsel to keep a track of the Suit filed by them. Contending that the inordinate delay of 1008 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit has not been satisfactorily explained, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the order of the Court below is vague and erroneous and cannot be sustained.

7. Whether the inordinate delay of 1008 days in filing the Application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to restore the Suit has been satisfactorily explained and whether the Plaintiff was prevented by "sufficient cause” in prosecuting the Suit is the main point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.

8. If the order of dismissal is to be set aside and delay is to be condoned, the Plaintiff is to prove "sufficient cause” for his non-appearance on 15.06.1997 and on the subsequent days. "Sufficient Cause” must be to the satisfaction of the Court. When the lower Court exercises the discreti