The importance of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and the need for a liberal approach.

M. Venugopal, J.

1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/3rd defendant has projected this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 010. 2007 in I. A. No. 509of 2006 in O.S. No. 161 of 1994 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff Ariyalur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 390 days in setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 110. 2000.

2. The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 has opined that “the benefits of the ex parte decree have been enjoyed by the respondent/plaintiff and in pursuance of the same delivery has been effected in Execution proceedings No. 73 of 2001 on 17.01.2002 and the same has been terminated on 22.01.2002 and therefore, under this circumstance, the reason assigned by the petitioner for condo nation of delay is unacceptable and ultimately dismissed the application without costs.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/3rd defendant, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A. No. 509 of 2006 without considering the reasons ascribed by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 and because of the old age and prolonged illness of the revision petitioner, the delay of 398 days has occurred and these aspects of the matter have not been taken note of by the. Trial Court in a real perspective and moreover the revision petitioner is an agriculturist and there is no evidence of culpable negligence or laches on his part and hence the delay is to be condoned due to health grounds andf the same is neither fulfill nor wanton and if there are bona fide reason,, then a liberal view has to be taken and the order of dismissal passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No.509 of 2006 has caused irreparable loss injustice to the revision petitioner and also that the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction not in a proper manner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner substantially and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition to prevent an aberration of justice.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submits that the trial Court has not accepted the reason ascribed by the revision petitioner in regard to the 398 days delay and in the present case, an ex parte decree has been passed on 110. 2000 and also an Execution proceeding No.73 of 2001 has been initiated by the respondent/decree holder in which the delivery has been effected as early as on 17.01.2002 and later the execution proceedings have come to an end and therefore at this distance of time, this Court way not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the application.

5. The Court has paid its anxious consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their contentions. It is to be noted that in the main suit O.S. No.161 of 1994 on the file of Trial Court, an ex parte decree has been passed on 110. 2000. Equally, it is not in dispute that the delivery has been effected on dispute that the delivery has been effected on 17.01.2002 in E.P. No.73 of 2001 and consequently the execution petition has been terminated.

6. The main reason furnished by the revision petitioner in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 is that due to his illness, he has not been able to appear on 110. 2000 and that his previous counsel has reported no instructions and therefore, the Court has passed an ex parte decree against him on 110. 2000 and only. After recovery from the illness he has met his previous counsel and learnt about the fact and that he has engaged the present counsel for conducting his case and as such there has been a delay of 398 days in presenting the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

7. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in his counter (filed through power agent) has averred among other things that there is deliberate act of ca