A liberal interpretation should be given to the term 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 05.01.2008 in I.A.No.334 of 2005 in O.S.No.143 of 2001, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 1108 days in restoring the O.S.No.143 of 2001 to file.

2.The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.334 of 2005, has interalia observed that ...the reason stated that the fact of the transfer from the I Additional Judge, Coimbatore to this Court did not reach the petitioner seems to be unaccepted one, since because whenever the suit is filed, it is the duty of the petitioner/plaintiff to follow up the matter then and there and at the time, the petitioner/ plaintiff has kept silent for more than 1,000 days by not following the continuous proceedings and the Original Suit is very clear and it proves negligence and carelessness of the petitioner/defendant in handling the matter and also the fact that he is not more serious in prosecuting the claim etc., and resultantly, come to the conclusion that there are no valid and bonafide reasons to allow this application, which is devoid of merits and dismissed the application without costs.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to exercise its discretion in favour of the revision petitioner and in fact, it should have condoned the delay in filing an application to restore the suit in order to give the petitioner/plaintiff an opportunity to have his claim decided on merits and admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of Specific Performance and that the petitioner/plaintiff has paid a huge amount as an advance and that the deceased husband of the first respondent has taken a plea that he has executed the stamp paper in blank for having borrowed money from the plaintiff which has also become time barred etc., and after the death of the defendant, his heirs have been impleaded as parties in I.A.No.498 of 2007 before the trial Court and in order to agitate the respective claims of the parties an opportunity should be provided by taking a liberal view, so that the suit can be decided on merits, but unfortunately these aspects of the matter have not been properly adverted to and appreciated by the trial Court in a real perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.

4.In support of the contention that a liberal is to be adopted by a Court of Law in dealing with the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff relies on the decision of this Court in B.Ganesan v. State Bank of India, Dharapuram Branch, Erode District and 3 Others (2008-2-L.W. 330), whereby and whereunder it is observed as follows;

The term "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal interpretation in the hands of law courts – A pedantic approach should not be made and on the other hand, a pragmatic approach should be made by the courts of law in the justice delivery system – Admittedly, refusing to condone the delay will certainly result in a good case being thrown out at the early stage and cause of justice being defeated.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.

It must be borne in mind that judiciary is respected because it is capable of removing injustice on technical grounds – Revision petitioner must be given an opportunity to contest the proceedings before the DRT, Coimbatore and in that view, his meritorious cause cannot be thrown out at the early stage – CRP allowed.

5.He also cites the decision of this Court in Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Che