The Court cannot adopt a pedantic approach in dealing with condonation applications under the Limitation Act. The reasons for delay must be sufficient and acceptable.

The petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 31.01.2009 in I.A.No.414 of 2008 in O.S.No.836 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 829 days in filing an application to set aside the Exparte Decree dated 18.07.2006 passed in the suit.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.414 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioner has projected the Xerox copies of medical records to the treatment meted out to his relatives and further the revision petitioner has not stated that his health has been affected and therefore he has not been in a position to take proper steps at the right time in regard to the conduct of case and as to why he has not filed the originals of the Xerox copies of the medical records has not been made mention of by the revision petitioner and except the reason that his relatives have taken medical treatment no other reason has been ascribed in regard to the delay of 829 days and as a matter of fact, the revision petitioner has not ascribed reasons for each and every days delay and resultantly dismissed the application.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant urges before this Court that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the father of the petitioner/defendant has expired recently and his mother who is a cancer patient has been under treatment in the Ramakrishna Hospital Coimbatore, and further that the revision petitioner has an unmarried sister aged about 45 years and suffering from Hypertension etc., and moreover the wife of the revision petitioner is a psychiatrist patient and as a male member and kartha of the family he has been looking after the family and therefore he has not been in a position to contact his counsel and attend to his case and added further, the communication sent by his counsel has not reached the petitioner and therefore, he has not attended the Court on 18.07.2006 and as a result, an exparte decree has been passed by the trial Court and in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff the revision petitioner/defendant has tangible and valid defence an opportunity to conduct the case and a judgment copy rendered by the trial Court on merit and in any event the reasoning of the trial Court in dismissing the application is an erroneous one both in Law and on facts and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra the learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree holder submits that the civil revision petitioner/defendant has not appeared before the trial Court on numerous occasions and the revision petition/defendant has been giving ample opportunities to cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff and in fact the respondent/plaintiff has paid initially a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the revision petitioner/defendant as advance and later on 21.08.2003 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-has been received and the remaining balance sale consideration has been deposited in the Court on 09.08.2006 and in fact the revision petitioner/defendant has not assigned cogent and proper reasons in regard to the condonation of delay and therefore, prays for dismissing of the civil revision petition.

5. This Court has heard the contentions advanced by both the counsels and noticed the same. It is to be noted that a Court of law cannot adopt a pedantic approach. Instead it has to adopt a purposeful and meaningful approach while dealing with the Section 5 condonation application. It is true that if Section 5 application under Limitation Act is allowed then the maximum thing that can happen is that the revision petitioner/defendant can be allowed to take part in the conduct of the main case and the cause can be decided on merits after pr