The main legal point established is the need for a pragmatic approach to deliver substantial justice and the importance of not rejecting explanations for delay when arguable points of facts and law are involved.

1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore District, are the petitioners in the above Civil Revision Petition. The respondents herein have filed the said suit seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 03.12.1993, said to have been executed by the first defendant. Since the defendants have not filed their written statement in time, they have been set exparte, on 28.12.2005. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.244 of 2007 to condone the delay of 119 days in filing the petition to set-aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it has been stated that since the petitioners had not received any communication from their counsel, the written statement could not be filed in time and it is further stated that there was no intentional default on the part of the petitioners in filing the written statement. The petition was opposed by the respondents herein contending that only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, they have not filed the written statement and now they have filed the present petition only to further drag on the proceedings. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions, dismissed the petition and being aggrieved by that, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only because the petitioners had not received the communication from their counsel, they could not meet their counsel and give instructions to file the written statement. The delay of 119 days is neither wilful nor wanton. He further submitted that in the suit for specific performance, the petitioners have got a valid defence and unless the delay is condoned the valuable rights of the petitioners will be defeated. He further submitted that the Court below ought to have accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioners and allowed the petition at least on terms.

4. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as pointed out by the Court below, though the petition to condone the delay had been filed on 26.04.2006, since the petition contained several mistakes, the same was returned several times and only on 11.04.2007, the petition as taken on file which will show that the intention of the petitioner was to drag on the proceedings; only taking those aspects into consideration, the Court below has rejected the petition. He further submitted that the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is no doubt true that, as pointed out by the Court below, though the petition has been filed on 26.04.2006, the same had been filed with several defects and hence it was returned and thereafter also, it was returned several times and only on 11.04.2007, the petition has been taken on file. But the defects in the petition cannot be attributed to the petitioners, since the petition will be filed only by the counsel. Therefore, the mistakes committed by the advocate should not affect the valuable rights of the petitioners.

7. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (1) CTC 769 (Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao). In the said decision, in paragraph 12, it has been laid down as follows:-

"12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a stra