A liberal view should be taken when considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court should prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations.

1. The civil revision petitioner/defendant has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 15.06.2007 in I.A.No.184 of 2006 in O.S.No.72 of 2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay of 1199 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.

2. The trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.184 of 2006 has opined that the reasons ascribed by the revision petitioner in her affidavit cannot be accepted and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

3. Assailing the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.184 of 2006, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that the revision petitioner has been careless and further, has not followed up the matter with one Vadivel, etc. and that she has been negligent in conducting the proceedings and moreover, the trial Court should have seen that the respondent/plaintiff has obtained a decree for the entirety to the first item of the suit property fraudulently and even contrary to the tenure of the alleged agreement to sell and moreover, the trial Court has lost sight of an important fact that a decree has been obtained by the respondent/plaintiff for the entire first item and half share in item Nos.2 and 3 and as a matter of fact, the said Vadivel is the husband of the revision petitioners cousin and that borrowing has been made by him and only in that connection, the revision petitioner has signed and handed over the blank papers and hence, she trusted the said Vadivel and she also further bonafidely believed that assurance of the said Vadivel and that the suit will not be prosecuted and that the said Vadivel has expired and only when the revision petitioner received notice in the E.P., she contacted Susheela, who is the cousin of the revision petitioner who informed her that the entire borrowings have been repaid only by the respondent/plaintiff and in short, these facts have not been taken note of by the trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.184 of 2006 and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice and consequently, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.184 of 2006, is correct in law and the revision petitioner has not made out a case for allowing the I.A.No.184 of 2006 and the petitioner has not explained the valid reasons for the delay of 1197 days and it is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant is executed another sale agreement with the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff consequently, has filed a suit against her and that the revision petitioner/defendant appeared through her Counsel and she deliberately allowed the suit to be decreed as ex-parte on 23.07.2003 and in pursuance of the ex-parte decree obtained by the respondent, etc. E.P.No.13 of 2006 has been filed and after long period of more than three and half years, the revision petitioner has wilfully and deliberately filed the said I.A with a view to procrastinate the entire proceedings and therefore, prays for dismissing the civil revision petition.

5. In regard to the condonation of delay application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court is of the view that a pedantie approach should not be made by the Court of law and the words sufficient cause will have to be given a liberal view and in that perspective, as a matter of prudence, the delay of 1197 days will have necessarily to be condoned. In this connection, it is relevant to point out that by and large, a litigant will not stand to benefit by projecting an application late and refusing to condone the delay, may result in meritorious matter bei