Valid and sufficient cause is required to condone delay, and the lower Court must consider the current law and the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.11.2006 passed in E.A.No.216 of 2005 in O.S.No.186 of 1982, by the learned District Munsif, Musiri.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The epitome and the long and the short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed E.P., which was returned for compliance. Several times, it was represented and returned and there occurred a delay of 1495 days in representation of the E.P. Wherefore, E.A.No.216 of 2005 was filed for getting the delay condoned in representing the E.P. However, after hearing both sides, the said application was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat by drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant records that the Advocate for the decree holder left India and went to the United States of America, whereupon it became very difficult for the party concerned to get the case bundle from the Office of the said Advocate and entrust the same to one other Advocate for filing the E.P; over and above that, the present revision petitioner - Chandra herself is not eo nominee decree holder and she only stepped into the shoes of the decree holder as his legal representative; the lower Court was wrong in understanding the law to the effect that each and every day's delay ought to have been explained by the revision petitioner concerned for getting the delay condoned and that might be the earlier law and now, the law got changed to the effect that the petitioner who seeks to get the delay condoned, should furnish only adequate reasons; here, the reasons as found set out in the grounds of revision as well as in the affidavit accompanying the petition were much more sufficient for condoning the delay and the petitioner who happens to be a widow could not represent the E.P. in time. Accordingly, he prays for condoning the delay.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/judgment debtors, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments on the side of the revision petitioner, would submit that the affidavit accompanying the E.A.No.216 of 2005 is niggard and bereft of reasons much less valid reasons; such huge delay cannot be condoned for the sake of asking for it; in the affidavit concerned, there is no reference that her Advocate left for the United States of America, etc. and she would only state that she started staying in Chennai; such bald and vague reasons cannot even by phantasmagorical thoughts be taken as sufficient for condoning such huge delay; over and above that, in the E.P., there were two prayers, viz., one for the purpose of executing the decree passed on 31.03.1983 in O.S.No.186 of 1982 by the learned District Munsif, Musiri and another for recovering the amounts assessed later as per the decree dated 30.10.1993 in I.A.No.1174 of 1990; the lower Court also raised such queries in the return, but the revision petitioner did not take steps to rectify the same; the presentation of the E.P., is barred by limitation as it was presented beyond twelve years.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court?

The Point:

8. At the outset itself, I would like to highlight the fact that it is no more the law that each and every day's delay should be explained for getting the delay condoned. However, it does not mean that by citing vague reasons, huge delays could be got condoned. In this connection, I would like to refer to the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:

(i) Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singhreported in(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus:

"26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the