Delay condoned for representing of suit papers.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2004, passed in I.A. No. 122 of 2003 in unnumbered suit on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Erode (now numbered as O.S. No. 105 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Erode).

2. The defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 6.1.2004 made in I.A. No. 122 of 2003 by which the trial Court condoned the delay of 1664 days in representing the suit papers on condition that a sum of Rs. 1,500- to be paid to the other side as cost. Subsequent to the order dated 6.1.2004, the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 105 of 2004.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that there is no difference in between a petition filed to condone the delay in presentation and the petition filed to condone the delay in representation and the trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that a valuable right has accrued to the revision petitioner by condoning such a huge delay. He relied on the decision of this Court reported in Muthusamy, A. v. Muniammal 2006 (1) CTC 187 for the proposition that the very same principles as are applicable to condonation of delay in presentation would apply to the condonation of delay in re-presentation also. He relied on the decision of this Court reported in Lalliammal v. Thulasi and 6 Others Lalliammal v. Thulasi and 6 Others Lalliammal v. Thulasi and 6 Others 2002 (1) L.W. 397 for the proposition that when the counsel has not re-presented the papers within the time, that is nothing short of a negligence and whatever right accrued to the other side because of the delay could not be lightly treated. The learned counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Sundar Gnanaolivu v. Rajendran Gnanavolivu 2003 (1) L.W. 585 for the proposition that whenever there is lack of bona fide or attempt to hoodwink the Court by the party by filing an application for condonation of delay no indulgence should be shown by the Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a difference between a petition filed for condoning the delay in filing and a petition filed to condone the delay in re-presentation and more liberal approach should be shown by the Court in the case of the latter. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of this Court reported in the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and Another v. T. Shadrak General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and Another v. T. Shadrak General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and Another v. T. Shadrak, 1978 TLNJ 332 and the decision of the Division Bench reported in Y. Cusbar v. K. Subbarayan 1993 TLNJ 375. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Balakrishnan, N. v. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (2) CTC 533 and Bhagmal v. M. P. Co-op. Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 1230 (2003) 11 SCC 727 to contend that when the delay has been condoned by the Court below by exercising its discretion, the same cannot be interfered with by the Court either under Section 115 of C.P.C., or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the decision of this Court reported in Yanaimal Thottam Trust v. B. Lakshmanan (2005) 3 MLJ 439 to submit that when technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the Courts should always be in favour of the substantial justice rather than technicalities. He also relied on the following decisions to submit that the word “sufficient cause” is to be liberally interpreted and Courts must adopt pragmatic approach in justice oriented