The main legal point established is that the discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.09.2001 passed by IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.17056 of 2000 in O.S.No.8894 of 1994, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, declining to condone the delay of 547 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit in O.S.No.8894 of 1994. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No.8894 of 1994:- The Suit Property relates to Plot No.51, Adisesha Nagar, Third Street, Main Road, Perambur, Madras – 600 012 measuring 1500 Sq.Ft., in R.S.No.321. The Suit Property belonged to Perambur Harijan Welfare Co-operative House Site Society. The Society is a registered Society and its Members are Harijans. The object of the Society is to uplift the Harijan Members. The Suit Site was allotted to one Pappammal – Grandmother of the Plaintiff. The said Pappammal had put up a super structure in the Suit Property, which bears Door No.4. The Suit Property consists of two portions, which is in the occupation of the First Defendant and another in the occupation of the Plaintiff and yet another portion in the occupation of D-2 and a thatched hut in the vacant site. Pappammal had a Daughter by name Panchalai. Panchalai was married to Subramani – Father of the Plaintiff. Even during the life time of Pappammal, the site allotted to her was transferred in the name of the Plaintiff’s Father – Subramani with the consent of Pappammal. On account of transfer, a further sum of Rs.106.25 became payable in addition to the sum of Rs.525/-. The Plaintiff and his Brother – Anbu – Second Defendant and their Sister – Thangaruby are the Sons and Daughter of Subramani and Panchalai. Subramani died intestate on 04.01.1988. After his death, the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.600/- due to the Society which he has paid from out of his earnings. The Society was ready to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, he has all along been in the occupation of the Suit Property as the owner of the Suit Property. While being so, the First Defendant – Cruz Mary has filed a Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1798 of 1990 in the Court of Small Causes, Chennai on the ground of Wilful Default against the Plaintiff. Exparte order of Eviction was ordered. In that proceedings, the Defendant had taken possession of the portions in the occupation of the Plaintiff and another portion in the occupation of the Tenant – Vanasundari. The Plaintiff learnt and understood that the Plaintiff’s Brother Anbu – Second Defendant has joined hands with the First Defendant and with her consent, he is staying there. The portion in the occupation of the Defendants is shown as "B-Schedule” Property. Plaintiff’s Father – Subramani never had right, title or interest in the property and he remained only an allottee without any Sale Deed in his favour. Further, the Plaintiff’s Father – Subramani never paid the installments due to the Society and only the Plaintiff has paid the dues, due to the society. The possession of the Defendants is unauthorised and wrongful. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration, declaring that "A-Schedule” Property belongs to the Plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the "B-Schedule” Property and other reliefs.

3. Resisting the Suit, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement. The Suit was dismissed for default on 26.02.1999.

4. I.A.No.17056 of 2000:- The Plaintiff has filed this Application on 25.09.2000. There was delay of 547 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit. Hence, the Application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. According to the Plaintiff, the counsel engaged by him was elevated and he had taken the bundle from his Advocate and thereafter he was not having any communication with his previous Counsel. It is averred that the bundles relating to other cases were handed over to his Junior Counsel. The Plaintiff had not contacted them and hence,