The judgment emphasizes the need for diligence and bona fide in seeking condonation of delay, and cautions against dilatory tactics in legal proceedings.

1. This Civil Revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 7.8.2009 in I.A. No.723 of 2008 in O.S.No.151 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

2. Legal heirs of the deceased Jagadeesan are the petitioner herein in the Civil Revision Petition. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit against the deceased Jagadeesan for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,45,600/-with interest on the basis of the promissory note said to have been executed by the deceased on 15.3.1987. The Defendant in the Suit received suit summons, entered appearance and filed a Written Statement on 11.2.2002 denying the suit claim. The Suit was taken up for trial and the Respondent/Plaintiff was examined in chief on 10.8.2005. Since the Defendant and his Counsel failed to appear before the Trial Court to cross-examine the PW1, the Defendant was set ex parte and the ex parte decree was passed on 10.8.2005. On the basis of the ex parte decree, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.129 of 2007, in which, the Defendant entered appearance through his Counsel on 20.4.2007. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was posted on 22.6.2007 for filing Counter Statement. It was thereafter adjourned to 9.7.2007 & 17.8.2007, the Defendant/Respondent in the Execution Petition filed a Counter Statement. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was posted on several occasions i.e. on 24.9.2007, 23.10.2007, 5.11.2007, 10.12.2007, 25.1.2008, 10.3.2008 & 8.4.2008. The Petitioner in the Execution Petition viz., decree-holder was heard and adjourned for enquiry an behalf of the Respondent/Judgment-debtor on 9.6.2008 and the case was adjourned from time to time viz., on 24.6.2008, 7.7.2008, 8.8.2008, 9.9.2008, 20.10.2008 & 25.11.2000 for enquiry on the side of the Respondent/judgment-debtor.

3. During the period when the Execution Petition was adjourned from time to time, on 7.11.2008, the Judgment-debtor/Respondent in the Execution petition filed an Application to condone the delay of 1153 days in preferring the Application to set aside the ex parte decree. That Application was numbered as I.A. No.723 of 2008. A detailed Counter Affidavit was filed setting out the various dates of adjournment given to the judgment-debtor and that the judgment-debtor had the knowledge of the ex parte decree and inspite of the same, the judgment-debtor failed to take appropriate steps to set aside the ex parte decree in time. Therefore, he pleaded that the Application filed for condonation of delay after nearly three years i.e. 1153 days lacks bona fide and is intended to protract, the litigation to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff/decree-holder and that the delay has not been properly explained and therefore, pleaded that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. This plea was considered by the Court below on merits and also considering the relevant dates and the proceedings, the said Application was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Revision Petition has been filed.

4. Sri Manoharan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the above stated facts. He only points out that an Application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree on the very next day i.e. on 11.8.2005 in CFR No.23513/11.8.2005. But it was neither returned nor numbered and was kept pending. Therefore, he filed a fresh Application after nearly three years. He relied upon the Apex Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamoorthy, 1998 (2) CTC 533 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 123, and stated that length of delay is immaterial if there is an acceptable explanation. In an Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the word ‘sufficient cause’ should be considered liberally so as to advance the cause of justice.

5. He also relied upon paragraphs 19 & 20 of the judgment in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others, 2010 (6) SCC 786, and pleaded for setting aside the order. paragraphs 19 & 20 of the judgment read as follows:

“In our