Delay in filing application can be condoned if sufficient reasons are given for the same.

M. Venugopal, J.

The revision petitioner/ appellant/ petitioner/4th defendant has filed the present civil revision petition as against the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A.No.217 of 2006 dated 18.04.2007, dismissing the appeal with costs.

2.The civil revision petitioner/appellant as petitioner filed I.A.No.24 of 2006 in T.A.No.2126 of 2002 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, praying to condone the delay of 993 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 19.03.2003. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore has passed orders in I.A.No.24 of 2006 on 13.09.2006 dismissing the said application inter alia observing that the revision petitioner has not come with clean hands and that the said application is devoid of any bonafide and that the said application is filed with a view to protract the proceedings.

3.The civil revision petitioner/appellant filed M.A.No.217 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as against the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore dated 13.09.2006 in I.A.No.24 of 2006 in T.A.No.2126 of 2002.

4.The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.No.217 of 2006 on 18.04.2007 has passed orders dismissing the appeal with costs among other things observing that the revision petitioner/appellant has not come with clean hands and there is contradiction in regard to the averments made by the revision petitioner in para 5 of I.A.No.24 of 2006 and that of the averments made by him in para 6 of I.A.No.23 of 2006.

5.Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.No.217 of 2006 dated 18.04.2007, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant/4th defendant.

6.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai has failed to take into consideration of the settled law that condonation of delay must be viewed liberally, when there is no delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner and that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was not served with the said summons and inasmuch as the first respondent/Bank has advanced a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-then opportunity must be given to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits and that the number of days delay is immaterial but only the sufficiency of reasons alone are relevant and these factors were not borne in mind by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai thereby resulting in the impugned order being passed against the petitioner.

7.In 2002 (1) CTC 769 Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others V. Gobardhan Sao and others, wherein it is held as follows:

"Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 – Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause – Meaning of

– Approach of courts while considering petition to condone delay – Expression "sufficient cause" in connection with delay in filing application to set aside abatement or other similar provision should receive liberal construction so as to advance justice when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party – Whether explanation for delay would constitute sufficient cause will depend upon facts of each case – Courts should not proceed with tendency of finding fault with "cause" shown and reject petition in over jubilation of disposal drive – Acceptance of explanation furnished should be rule and refusal exception more so when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to defaulting party – However courts should not lose sight of fact that by not taking steps within prescribed time valuable right as accrued to other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine manner – Explanation for delay should not rejected taking pedantic and hyper-technical view or when stakes are high or where arguable points of facts and law are involved – Courts have to strike balance between th