Length of delay does not matter if sufficient cause for the same is shown.

1. First plaintiff in O.S.No.552 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode is the revision petitioner. The above suit was filed to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and the defendants do not have any right to create encumbrance over the same.

2. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, since the revision petition is against an order condoning the delay of 2569 days in I.A.No.1470 of 1997. The above suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were set ex parte and an application was filed to have the ex parte decree set aside. There is a delay of nearly 2600 days and the same was sought to be explained by filing the said application. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that the first respondent herein engaged the counsel on 14.6.1989, but thereafter, he met with an accident and fell ill and continued to be bed ridden till 5.9.1997. He further averred that he was under medical advice and under complete rest and not to move about of his residence. It is further averred that the plaintiffs approached an Ex.M.L.A to settle the matter and through him, he came to know that the ex parte decree was passed on 27.7.1990. It is only because of his illness, he could not file an application earlier and also he did not have the knowledge of the ex parte decree. A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein. For the purpose of the said application, the petitioners as well as respondents were examined. After considering the evidence, the lower court held that interests of justice require that the ex parte decree should be set aside. For the said purpose, the lower court had also taken note of the statement of the plaintiffs wherein the first plaintiff said that she has no objection in setting aside the ex parte decree. The lower court awarded costs of Rs.1,000 to the plaintiffs, while allowing the said application with a further direction that if the said sum is not paid on or before 15.10.1998, the said application shall stand dismissed. The said order is challenged in this revision petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (1999)1 S.C.C. 37 in paragraph 11 of the judgment, their Lordships held that even if an order passed by the subordinate court has any illegality or is affected by material irregularity, the High Court will not interfere unless the said order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or its effect would be infliction of irreparable injury to any party.

5. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamoorthy N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamoorthy N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamoorthy, (1998)7 S.C.C. 123 their Lordships considered this question in detail. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, it was held thus:

“It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fidesor it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.”

In the earlier portion of the judgment, their Lordships held that the condonat