A delay in filing an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the delay is not inordinate and the petitioner provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

1. This revision is directed against the dismissal order passed in C.M.P.No.1345 of 1996 in A.S.SR.No.47457 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The said petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for ejectment in O.S.No.3366 of 1987 before the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the same was decreed ex parte on 20.1.1993. Even though the revision petitioners herein subsequently filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, along with an application to condone the delay of 10 days, the trial court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, a revision was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 5.2.1996 and ultimately, an S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. on 7.5.1996 refusing to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. It is only thereafter, the petitioners thought of filing an appeal against the ex parte decree passed on 20.1.1993. As there was a delay of more than 3 1/2 years, they filed this petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The learned principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, holding that the delay is inordinate and that the grounds given also are not acceptable, dismissed the petition for condonation of the delay. Hence, the petitioners before the court below have come forward with this revision.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners Mr.R. Thiagarajan submitted that the petitioners and the respondent are close relatives, that there is another litigation between the same parties in respect of the very same property pending in this Court, that this suit relates to the settlement executed by the father in law of the first revision petitioner in favour of the respondent herein, who filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of the settlement deed, that though unfortunately, the said suit was decreed ex parte and the ex parte decree also could not be set aside in spite of the proceedings, which went upto the Apex Court in S.L.P.No. 10491 of 1996, the revision petitioners' right to file appeal against the ex parte decree cannot be denied, that as the petitioners were hopeful of getting the ex parte decree set aside, they were concentrating only in that proceedings to have the ex parte decree set aside and, as that proceedings has ended against them, they have filed the appeal before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, though there is delay of 1373 days, and this delay is not due to any negligence but under the bonafide impression that they will get the remedy in the other proceedings, viz., the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned counsel Mr.Thiagarajan further submitted that the revision petitioners would never intend to cause deliberate delay against their own interest and as they were prosecuting the other proceedings, bona fide, they are exercising the right of appeal bonafide after the previous proceedings is over and therefore, they might be given opportunity to place their defence in the suit so that the suit itself could be disposed of on merit.

4. The learned counsel relied upon the decision on the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 wherein the Apex Court has held that all the litigants before the Court of law, including the state, have to be treated alike and accorded the same treatment and in the case of condonation of delay, the court should adopt a liberal approach. That was a case in which the state did not file the appeal in time, and the delay had occurred. Therefore, the Apex Court has observed that even though the State has not filed the appeal in time, the state also should be treated like any other litigant b