The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the importance of advancing substantial justice.

1. The Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.09.2010 in I.A.No.42 of 2010 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 passed by the Learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.

2. The Learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, while passing the order in I.A.No.42 of 2010 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 on 21.09.2010, has categorically, inter alia, observed that '... The date of the Exparte Decree is 2.6.2006. The respondent has filed I.A.No.723/08 for final decree and in the application, this petitioners have entered appearance on 5.10.08 itself through their counsel. But immediately the petition to set aside the Exparte Decree was not filed by this petitioners and this petition is dated 20.1.2010. According to the first petitioner, he was employed in Coimbatore but this cannot be a reason for non-participation in the proceedings of the above suit. Therefore as rightly contended there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 1323 days' etc., and consequently, dismissed the petition with costs.

3. Challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.No.42 of 2010 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 dated 21.09.2010 passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the 1st Revision Petitioner (1st Defendant) with whom the proceedings of the main suit were entrusted was bed-ridden and therefore, was not in a position to take part in the proceedings.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants strenuously submits that the main suit O.S.No.160 of 2005 has been filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff on the file of trial Court seeking the relief of partition in respect of suit properties and in view of the fact that the rights of parties are very much involved in this regard and also bearing in mind a prime fact that final decree proceedings in I.A.No.723 of 2008 are very much pending as on date, no serious prejudice would be caused to the Respondent/Plaintiff, if I.A.No.42 of 2010 [petition to condone the delay of 1323 days in setting aside Exparte Decree dated 21.09.2010 filed by the Petitioners/Defendants] is allowed.

5. Lastly, it is the plea of the Petitioners/Defendants that the trial Court has erred in observing that the delay of 1323 days that has occurred in the matter in issue has not been explained.

6. A perusal of the contents of Affidavit in I.A.No.42 of 2010 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 [filed by the 2nd Revision Petitioners/2nd Defendant for himself and on behalf of the 1st Petitioner/1st Defendant] clearly point out that the 1st Revision Petitioner/1st Defendant was entrusted with the proceedings of the suit fell ill suddenly on account of the orthopedic pain and suffering in the legs below the knees and bed ridden. Therefore, the Revision Petitioners were not able to participate in the conduct of trial and as such, the Exparte Decree dated 02.06.2006 came to be passed.

7. Continuing further, it is the stand of the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants that they were neither negligent nor careless in defending the main suit O.S.No.160 of 2005 on the file of trial Court (filed for seeking the relief of partition) and the delay of 1323 days that had occasioned in filing the petition to set aside the Exparte Decree passed in the main suit dated 02.06.2006 may kindly be caused to be condoned in the interest of justice.

8. In the counter to I.A.No.42 of 2010 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, it is mentioned that the Exparte Decree in the main suit was passed on 02.06.2006 but I.A.No.42 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioners to set aside the preliminary decree only 20.01.2010. Also, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed I.A.No.723 of 2008 in O.S.No.160 of 2005 praying for passing of a final decree and to appoint the Commission to divide the suit properties as per preliminary decree dated 02.06.2006. As a matter of fact, the Petitioners/Defendants engaged their counsel during December, 2008.

9. According to the