The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' while considering the impact on the rights of the other party.

The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed this revision as against the order dated 12. 2008 in I.A.No.677 of 2007 in O.S.No.56 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Coimbatore in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.677 of 2007, has come to the conclusion that the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner/defendant in projecting the application with a delay are not fair and acceptable and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant submits that the trial Court has failed to see that the suit summons has not been served on the revision petitioner and that he has come to know about the exparte decree only when the officers from the Mettupalayam Municipality vested his property and when an exparte decree has been passed at that time the petitioner has been suffering from severe heart problem and in short, the non appearance of the revision petitioner has been due to sufficient and bona fide reason and the same is not willful or deliberate and also that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the petitioner has not established the genuineness of the medical certificate and if the exparte decree is not set aside then it will cause serious hardship and loss to the petitioner depriving his right of defence totally and looking at from any angle the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.677 of 2007 is an untenable one and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to advance the cause of justice.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner has not assigned sufficient cause in his affidavit in I.A.No.677 of 2007 praying to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 23. 2007 and that the trial Court has ultimately come to the right conclusion that the reasons ascribed by the petitioner in the affidavit are not a fair and acceptable one and has dismissed the application without costs and the same need not be interfered by this Court in revision.

5. In the affidavit in I.A.No.677 of 2007 in O.S.No.56 of 2007 filed by the petitioner/defendant, it is among other things averred that when the case has been posted on 23. 2007 for his appearance he has remained absent and therefore, he has been set exparte and that the summons has not been served on him and therefore, he has been called absent and set exparte and further that he has been suffering from severe heart problem and has been under treatment even prior to 23. 2007 wherein an exparte decree has been passed against him and also that he has not been in a position to move out of his house, and even now he has been under severe medical treatment and moreover, he has been advised by the doctor to take bed rest for the past 3 ½ months and is bedridden and added further, he is in possession of the suit property and on 27. 2007 when some officials from the Mettupalayam Municipality has come and inspected the suit property, he has made an enquiry and the officials informed that the respondent Chandrasekaran has applied for name transfer and they informed him of the suit proceedings and that the exparte decree has been passed against him and later he has contacted his counsel and has verified that he has been set exparte on 23. 2007 and further he has got a valid defence in the suit and therefore, he may be allowed to contest the suit and if the exparte decree is allowed to stand, he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

6. In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is mentioned that it is false to state that the petitioner has been suffering from severe heart problem and he has been taking treatment even prior to 23. 2007 and it is also false to state that he has not been in a position to move from his bed and he has been advised to take bed rest for 3 ½