Due to delaying attitude adopted by defendant, order condoning delay not justified.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram in I.A.No.71 of 2006 in O.S.No.204 of 1998, condoning the delay of 563 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte decree on payment of costs of Rs.750/-. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. Brief facts are as follows:- Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the Suit against the Respondent/Defendant in O.S.No.204 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,800/-. Suit summons served to the Defendant and suit was posted for appearance of the Defendant on 20.11.1998. On 20.11.1998, the Defendant was set exparte. The Respondent/Defendant had filed I.A.No.858 of 1998 under O.9 R.7 C.P.C to set aside the exparte order and the same was allowed on 211. 1998. The Suit was posted for filing of the Written Statement on various dates from 211. 1998 to 30.06.2003. Since the Defendant has not filed the Written Statement for nearly four years, on 30.06.2003, exparte decree was passed.

3. The Plaintiff/Decree Holder filed E.P.No.41 of 2004 for recovery of the amount by arrest of the Defendant. The case was posted for hearing on 22.03.2004. The Respondent/Defendant did not appear before the Court and he was set exparte on 22.03.2004. On Application filed by Respondent/Defendant, exparte order of arrest was set aside. Again, the Respondent/Defendant was taking time for filing counter in the Execution Proceedings. At that stage, the Respondent has filed I.A.No. 71 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 563 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree dated 30.06.2003.

4. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff resisted the Application by filing elaborate Counter Statement narrating the dates and events.

.5. Observing that though the Defendant has not properly explained the delay, to afford an opportunity to advance substantial justice, the Trial Court condoned the delay and allowed the Application, which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has contended that despite opportunity given to the Defendant for nearly four years, the Defendant had not chosen to file the Written Statement. Taking me through the dates and events, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that it would only show that the Defendant is filing applications one after another only with a view to drag on the proceedings. It was submitted that in condoning the delay of 563 days by the lower Court, there is improper exercise of discretion and the Impugned Order is to be set aside.

7. Submitting that the Respondent/Defendant is a Government servant and was transferred from one place to another and hence, he could not contest the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that with a view to afford opportunity to the Respondent / Defendant and to do substantial justice the Court below has rightly condoned the delay and there is no reason calling for interference.

8. In condoning the delay of 563 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree, whether there is proper exercise of discretion is the only point arising for consideration in this Revision.

9. Of course, it is the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in various decisions that "sufficient cause" appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberally considered and the Court should be slow in shutting the door of justice to a litigant on the score of limitation. When the reason for the delay is properly explained, the Court is to adopt a pragmatic approach to condone the delay when there is no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide on the part of the Applicant.

10. At the same time, the discretion must not be exercised in any arbitrary or vague or fanciful manner; but must be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circum