The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to construe the term 'sufficient cause' liberally and the emphasis on substantial justice in condoning delay.

The Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the applicant in I.A.No.184 of 2003 and the second defendant in the suit O.S.No.558 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. The Civil Revision petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application No. 184 of 2003 praying to condone the delay of 539 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed against the revision petitioner on 10.07.2001, under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the said application, the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant has inter-alia stated that for non-filing of written statement, the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant was set exparte and that exparte decree was passed on 10.07.2001 and the then Advocate for the Civil revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant did not inform the factum of exparte decree to the revision petitioner and only when the civil revision petitioner received the execution notice, the civil revision petitioner came to know about the passing of exparte decree.

2. In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is stated that the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant has not filed the written statement along with the application to set aside the exparte decree and that the applicant has to explain the delay of each and every day and that the revision petitioner/ applicant/second defendant ought to have been diligent in defending the suit and that there is no bonafide or merit in the application, which has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and therefore prayed for dismissal of the said application.

3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in his order dated 012. 2003 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No. 558 of 1999 has observed that each and every day delay was not explained by the applicant and only to defeat the execution proceedings and with a view to delay the proceedings, the present application has been filed and finally dismissed the application.

4. As against the said order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem dated 012. 2003 in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the Civil Revision Petitioner/applicant/ second defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner contends that it was due to the mistake of the Advocate in not properly advising the civil revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant, the written statement was not filed before the lower Court and that in the said I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999, the civil revision petitioner/applicant / second defendant has shown sufficient cause and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 539 days in filing the I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999 to set aside the exparte decree. The learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner pressed into service the decision "(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 " (N. Balakrishnan ..vs.. M. Krishnamurthy), wherein it is observed as follows: -

"A. Limitation Act, 1963 – S.5 – condonation of delay – Discretion of Court – How to exercise – Guidelines stated – Words "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally – Acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay not relevant – In absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, court should normally condone the delay - However, while doing so Court should also keep in mind the consequent litigation expenses to be incurred by the opposite party and should compensate him accordingly – Where a court condones delay in positive exercise of discretion, superior court and more particularly the revisional court should not normally disturb the same – But where request for condonation of delay is refused, it would be open to the superior court to come to its own finding on the basis of explanation for the delay given by the party – delay on t