Discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, must be exercised within reasonable bounds known to law, and the substantial law of limitation should not be jettisoned without justification.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 20.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.3440 of 2010 in O.S.No.317 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

2. The suit O.S.No.317 of 2004 filed on promissory note by the respondent for recovery of money was decreed ex parte on 14.3.2005. According to the revision petitioner on receipt of notice in R.E.P.No.271 of 2006 for auction came to know about the ex parte decree and thereafter he filed the I.A.No.3440 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1813 days (i.e.) about 5 years. The said application came to be resisted by the respondent/ plaintiff.

3. In the said I.A.No.3440 of 2010, the Court below issued notice to the respondent herein on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time for filing counter. On 25.1.2011 counter has been filed. From 25.1.2011, it was adjourned from time to time for enquiry till March 2011. Thereafter on various dates at the request of the revision petitioner/defendant, the case was adjourned from time to time till 6.4.2011. On 6.4.2011 the revision petitioner was examined in chief and adjourned to 18.4.2011 for cross examination of P.W.1. On 18.4.2011, P.W.1 was cross examined. From April to June 2011, the matter was adjourned from time to time for further evidence of the revision petitioner. On 22.6.2011, the revision petitioner made endorsement stating that the petitioners evidence is closed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time for evidence of the respondent/plaintiffs side. On 29.6.2011, an endorsement was made by the respondent/plaintiff that there is no oral evidence. Thereafter, argument was heard on both sides on 6.7.2011. On 20.7.2011, the I.A.No.3440 of 2010 came to be dismissed by passing a detailed order holding that no proper independent evidence has been let in to explain the delay in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Further, the revision petitioner has received notice in the execution proceedings in the year 2007, but the delay condonation petition was filed in the year 2010. The court below relied upon the following decisions:-

(1)2008(3) CTC 697,

(2)2009(5) CTC 48 and

(3)2010(6) CTC

tohold that sufficient cause has not been given and the delay has not been properly explained.

Challenging the same, the revision petition has been filed.

4. On going through the affidavit filed in I.A.No.3440 of 2010 for condondation of delay of 1813 days (i.e.) about five years and the orders passed by the court below, this court is not inclined to differ from the view taken by the court below for the following reasons:-

(1) The plea of suffering from paralysis is not proved by any medical records. No records have been shown before the court below or even before this Court.

(2) The enormous delay of five years have not been explained.

(3) In this case, the revision petitioner did not deny the service of notice. Therefore, it is necessary for the revision petitioner to explain the delay.

5. The plea that the revision petitioner was suffering from paralysis and therefore, he was unable to prosecute the matter in time does not appear to be bona fide. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff has obtained decree in the year 2005 and the matter is pending in execution stage. The prejudice that will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff will also be considered in a case of undue delay by the revision petitioner/defendant.

6. The recent decision of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by Lrs. - vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 2011- 3-L.W. 26 has clearly held that all discretionary powers, especially, judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds known to law. The Court does not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary power. It also holds that "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially,