In case of improper exercise of discretionary power by Trial Court, interference by High Court is called for.

Challenge in this Revision is to the Order of dismissal of the application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, declining to condone the delay of 276 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte Decree.

2. Whether delay was due to negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Petitioners and whether the impugned Order declining to condone the delay of 276 days is sustainable, are the points arising for consideration in this Revision Petition.

3. Before we deal with the contentions and number of case laws cited, we may refer to brief facts, which are as follows:-

3. 1. Respondent/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.1484/2000 before the Sub Court, Coimbatore against one Gopalan [since deceased] for the relief of Specific Performance, directing him to execute Sale Deed in Plaintiffs favour on the basis of a registered Sale Agreement dated 011. 1997 and for consequential relief of recovery of possession. Pending suit, sole Defendant died on 23.02.2001, leaving behind him his wife, son and daughter, who are the Petitioners herein. Petitioners were brought on record in the suit as Defendants 2 to 4. Suit was adjourned to various dates for filing Written Statement and finally, the suit was decreed exparte on 23.04.2003 for non-filing of Written Statement.

3. 2. Balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-was deposited on 03.06.2003.

Respondent/Plaintiff filed E.P.No. 401/2003 for execution of the Sale Deed. Petitioners were set exparte in the execution proceedings on 02.02.2005. Court has ordered execution of the Sale Deed in Plaintiffs favour and Plaintiff has also deposited Non-Judicial Stamp papers and the Sale Deed was executed by the Court on 20.07.2005.

3. 3. Respondent/Plaintiff has filed E.P.No.301/2005 for delivery of possession and Court has issued Warrant for delivery of possession. Decree-Holder has also filed applications to break open shops and for effecting delivery of the property and also for police protection. Petitioners have filed applications to recall delivery of warrant ordered.

3. 4. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.160/2004 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 276 days in filing application to set aside the exparte Decree. Application was filed in April, 2004, the same was adjourned to 08.06.2004. Thereafter, application was not traceable for quite some time. C.R.P.No.1505/2006 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.160/2004, within a period of six weeks. Lower Court dismissed the application I.A.No.160/2004 finding that the Defendants did not take prompt efforts to set aside the Decree. Finding that no sufficient cause was shown for delay, Court has declined to condone the delay. Placing reliance upon 2006(4) TNLJ 299, Court has held that over the years, several proceedings have been ordered and the same cannot be reopened, causing prejudice to the Decree-Holder.

4. Challenging the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Thiagarajan has made forcible presentation submitting that in construing the expression "sufficient cause", Courts are to adopt liberal approach and that approach must be justice oriented. Taking me through records, learned Counsel has submitted that application I.A.No.160/2004 was not traceable for more than two years and the act of the Court cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to the party. It was further submitted that Petitioners have sufficient cause since the head of the family Gopal had passed away and thereafter, the counsel engaged by him had also passed away. It was submitted that even if Sale Deed was executed in favour of Plaintiff, it could be contested in terms of money and unless an opportunity is given to the Petitioners, Petitioners would be subjected to great hardship. In support of his contention that Courts are to take liberal approach, learned Counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions – 1998(II)CTC 533 – N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy; 1999(I)CTC 238