The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinct proof of 'sufficient cause' in condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the limited scope of inquiry in exercising discretionary power.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the Fair Order and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.10600/2006 in O.S.No.5295/1996 dated 30.8.2006, by the II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

This Revision Petition arises out of the Order of II Assistant/City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.10600/2006 in O.S.No.5295/1996, allowing the Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoning the delay of 2006 days, on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

2.1. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.5295/1996 for Specific Performance. The Defendant has entered appearance and filed Written Statement denying execution of the Agreement of Sale. The suit was posted in the list on 15.11.2000. PW-1 was examined in Chief on 15.11.2000 and the case was adjourned to 21.11.2000. On 21.11.2000, there was no representation for the Defendant and hence the Defendant was called absent and the suit was decreed exparte on the same day i.e. on 21.11.2000. For execution of the Decree, Plaintiff has filed E.P.No.259/2006 and the Defendant has received Notice in the Execution Proceedings on 07.07.2006.

2.2. On receipt of Notice in the E.P., the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.10600/2006 seeking condonation of delay of 2006 days in filing application to set aside the exparte Decree. According to the Defendant, he had several family problems and hence he was unable to give necessary instructions to his counsel and could not get along with the matter. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has resisted that application.

2.3. Finding that sufficient cause has been shown by the Petitioner for the delay and placing reliance upon 2002 (1) CTC 769, [Ram Nath Sao & others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & others], the lower Court has allowed the application, condoning the delay of 2006 days on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, which is challenged in this revision.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the inordinate delay of 2006 days has not been properly explained and while so, the Court has erroneously condoned the delay. Placing reliance upon 1962 (2) SCR 762 [Ramlal Motilal and Chotelal Vs.Rewa Coalfields Ltd.], it was further submitted that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be stretched to such an extent of condoning the inordinate delay, which has not been satisfactorily explained.

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that even after obtaining the Decree, the Decree Holder has not applied for executing the Decree. E.P. has been filed only in 2006 and opportunity ought to be given to the Defendant to contest the matter. It was further submitted that if opportunity is not given in a suit for specific performance, the Defendant would be subjected to great hardship.

5. I have carefully examined the materials on record and considered the submissions. Case of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the Respondent has agreed to sell the superstructure part bearing No.33, Kattoor Nallamuthu Achari Street, Choolai, Chennai for Rs.24,000/- and he has paid the entire sale consideration. The Defendant is said to have executed an Agreement of Sale on 22.04.1993 and the Plaintiff was also put in possession of the suit property in part performance of the contract. Since the Defendant has not executed the Sale Deed, after issuing Advocate Notice on 13.01.1996, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Specific Performance. The Defendant has filed Written Statement denying the execution of the Agreement of Sale and also denied receipt of sale consideration. After framing issues, the suit was posted in the Special List on 15.11.2000 and the Plaintiff was examined as PW-1. When the case was posted for PW-1's cross examination on 21.11.2000, the Defendant did not turn up and hence the suit was decreed exparte.

6. According to the Defendant, he had family problems and that he could not give instructions to his counsel and could not get alo