The court emphasized the importance of a liberal approach in condoning the delay, especially when no negligence or inaction is imputable to a party, and when the words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

(Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 29.03.2004 and 06.04.2004 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.1049 of 2002 in O.S.No.182 of 1999 and I.A.No.306 of 2004 in O.S.No.182 of 1999, as stated therein.)

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 29.03.2004 and 06.04.2004 of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.1049 of 2002 in O.S.No.182 of 1999 and I.A.No.306 of 2004 in O.S.No.182 of 1999 respectively, allowing the Petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Decree on payment of Rs.1000/- and setting aside the exparte Decree dated 16.08.1999. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No.182 of 1999:- The Plaintiff has filed the Suit, claiming Rs.1,67,662/- from the Defendant. Case of the Plaintiff is that he was appointed as the Sales Representative of the Defendant Company. With effect from 01.07.1994, he was promoted to the post of Area Sales Executive with salary of Rs.5010/- per month. Later, under the Scheme, the plaintiff was offered the Distributorship for Trichirappalli area on the assurance that the Plaintiff's Income would be protected by the Defendant. With reluctance, the Plaintiff accepted the offer by giving a Written Offer dated 07.11.1995. The Defendant – Wilkinson Sword (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Wilkinson Ltd") has not performed its obligation in proper supply of the products. From May 1997, no supply has been provided as per the Agreement. As a result of the Defendant's non-compliance of the terms of the Appointment, the Plaintiff had lost his Income and has suffered loss. The Defendant is bound to pay to the Plaintiff Subsidy and other amounts as per the Agreement dated 08.12.1995. Hence, after issuing pre-Suit Notice, the Suit has been filed for Recovery of Rs.1,67,662/-.

3. In the said Suit, Defendant – Wilkinson Ltd., has been set exparte on 16.08.1999. In the meantime, the Defendant – Wilkinson Ltd., was amalgamated with Gillette India Limited by the order of the Company Court at New Delhi on 19.10.2000 in C.P.No.252 and 253 of 2000. Though the Plaintiff has obtained an exparte Decree as early as on 16.08.1999, the Decree in O.S.No.182 of 1999 was transmitted to the Executing Court at Madras in the year 2002. The Execution Notice has been served upon the Gillette India Limited on 01.07.2002.

4. I.A.No.1049 of 2002: - Immediately after receiving the Notice, Gillette India Limited has filed this Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1664 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Decree. In the supporting Affidavit, it has been alleged that under the Scheme of amalgamation, Wilkinson Ltd., was amalgamated with M/s. Indian Shaving Products Limited i.e. Gillette India Limited. The Execution Notice was received only on 01.07.2002. Only then, the Gillette India Limited had knowledge about the Suit and the exparte Decree passed thereon. From the date of knowledge about the Decree, the Gillette India Limited has filed the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1664 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Decree.

5. I.A.No.1036 of 2003: - Earlier, the Gillette India Limited has filed the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1664 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Decree. The Gillette India Limited has filed this Application to amend the number of days as Five days instead of 1664 days.

6. I.A.No.306 of 2004: - The Gillette India Limited has also filed this Application under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C to set aside the exparte Decree dated 16.08.1999 and to given them an opportunity to file their Written Statement and to contest the Suit.

7. The Applications were resisted by the P