The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of condoning delay to provide an opportunity for the affected party to participate in the litigation, and the need to consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case before interfering with lower court's decision to condone delay.

1. Animadverting upon the orders dated 13.6.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, in I.A.No.307 of 2007 and I.A.No.6 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 2001 and O.S.No.34 of 2002, respectively, these revision petitions have been filed.

2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

Ekambaram-the respondent in both the revisions filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2001 for declaration of his title over an immovable property and for injunction as against Selvaraj-the revision petitioner herein in both the revisions. Subsequently, O.S.No.34 of 2002 was filed by the said Selvaraj in the same Court as against Ekambaram for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession.

(ii) It so happened that when O.S.No.69 of 2001 came up for trial, it was dismissed for default. However, the said O.S.No.34 of 2002 filed by Selvaraj was decreed ex-parte even as early as on 19.2.2003 due to non-appearance of the said Ekambaram as defendant in the suit.

(iii) I.A.No.307 of 2007 was filed in O.S.No.69 of 2001 to get the delay of 263 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 to get the suit O.S.No.69 of 2001 restored.

(iv) Similarly, I.A.No.6 of 2008 in O.S.No.34 of 2002 was filed to get the delay of 1189 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to get the ex-parte decree set aside.

(v) The lower Court separately heard those applications and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- and Rs.1000/-, respectively.

(vi) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff, the costs were deposited in the Court, inasmuch as, the advocate in the lower Court did not receive the same.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders condoning the delay, Selvaraj-the plaintiff filed these two revisions on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff would pilot his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The delay involved in these matters are so huge that a lenient view cannot be taken.

(ii) The respondent herein-Ekambaram tries to put the blame on his advocate as though his advocate failed to enter appearance in O.S.No.34 of 2002 and that the same advocate failed to inform him of the hearing date etc.

(iii) The advocate himself was not examined and if at all Ekambaram had any grievance as against his advocate, he ought to have filed complaint before the Bar council, but he has not chosen to do so.

(iv) The reasons found set out in the affidavits are so vague as vagueness could be, as those reasons could never be equated to valid reasons contemplated for condoning the delay.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revisions would pray for setting aside the orders passed in both the I.As and for allowing the revisions.

5. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements on the side of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondent would pyramid his arguements, which could succinctly and pithily be set out thus:

(i) The lower Court though fit to condone the delay taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this matter. Normally when the lower Court itself condones the delay, the High Court would not interfere. In this case, the conditions imposed by the lower Court also were complied with.

(ii) The suit filed by the respondent herein/Ekambaram was one for declaration and for injunction and in respect of the same property, the revision petitioner herein-Selvaraj filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. As such, both the suits should have been clubbed together and dealt with. But it was not done so.

(iii) There could have been no deliberate intention on the part of the revision petitioner herein, who is admittedly in possession of the suit property to refrain from appearing in the Court to allow the respondent herein