Government or public authority cannot be put on same footing as individuals.

1. The revision petition questions the decretal order passed in I.A. No.113 of 2005 in O.S. No.116 of 2004 dated 25.8.2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, dismissing the interlocutory application filed for condonation of the delay of 306 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. Following are the few facts leading to the filing of the revision petition. The first respondent is Ambasamudram Vatta Thirukoil Paniyalargal Sangam. The said Sangam initially filed a suit before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, which was numbered as O.S. No.55 of 2001, praying for a judgment end decree of declaration declaring that the members of the Sangam are the Government servants and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the revision petitioner from effecting publication to the effect that the members of the Sangam are the employees of the temple. The suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District Munsif in view of the change of jurisdiction of the Courts and was numbered as O.S. No.116 of 2004. As the revision petitioner, the fourth defendant in the suit, did not appear in Court, an ex parte order was passed on 9.8.2004, followed by an ex parte decree on 9.9.2004.

3. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.113 of 2004 to set aside the ex parte order and decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the revision petitioner contended that after the suit was transferred from the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ambasamudram to the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, the petitioner was not informed of the transfer and had no knowledge in time. Therefore, the revision petitioner did not appear before the learned Additional District Munsif on 9.8.2004. It was also averred that the staff of the petitioner did not inform in time about the ex parte order and decree, coupled with the further fact that the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Tirunelveli was entrusted with the charge of three districts and, therefore, could not follow the stags of the suit. It was also averred that the delay was not only due to the above reasons, but also on administrative grounds. The application was opposed by the first respondent on the ground that the ex parte decree, was informed to the petitioner vide their letter dated 9.12.2004, and hence the petitioner had the knowledge. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not file the application in time, as the same was filed only on 12.7.2005. To substantiate the above stand, the Secretary of the first respondent-Sangam also entered the box and had deposed. On consideration of the above, the learned Additional District Munsif, by the impugned order, has dismissed the application, as the delay was not properly explained. Hence, the revision petition.

4. I heard Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, the learned counsel for the first respondent/caveator.

5. It is the condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested, the Court must satisfy itself as to whether there was sufficient cause for exercising such discretion and condone the delay. Moreover, in an application for condonation of delay either by the Government or the public authority or the temple as in this case for that matter, consideration must be with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752 for the above proposition. His Lordship Justice Arijit Pasayat, speaking for the Bench, has elaborately discussed the scope and exercise of discretion in matters like this. The law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue is as follows:

"The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent or exercise of the extraordinary restriction (sic discretion) vested in th