The court establishes that for condonation of delay, the reasons given must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. The court emphasizes that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons must justify the condonation of delay. The court also highlights the importance of diligence in defending a case and the need to consider the advantage or disadvantage caused to the other party in exercising discretion to condone delay.

1. The revision petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the Order dated 15.12.2012 passed in I.A. No. 8835 of 2012 in O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by which, the Petition filed by the respondents herein for condonation of delay of 2045 days in re-presenting the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.10.2002 in O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 was allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. (i) The admitted facts in this case is that the revision petitioner herein, as Plaintiff, has originally filed the suit in C.S. No. 103 of 1993 before this Court for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.01.1992. Subsequently, the suit stood transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 on the file of learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On notice in the suit, the first defendant filed vakalat through her advocate on 07.03.1997. The first defendant also filed her written statement on 25.07.1997. While so, the suit was dismissed for default and to restore the suit which was dismissed for default, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A. No. 152 of 1999 to set aside the order, in which notice was ordered. On notice, except the fourth defendant, all the defendants have filed vakalath on various dates. As far as the 7th and 8th defendants are concerned, they have filed Vakalath on 08.02.1999 and the defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed vakalath on 22.03.1999. Ultimately, the suit was restored to file.

(ii) Subsequently, the defendants/respondents herein were called absent and an exparte decree was passed on 08.10.2002. For setting aside the exparte decree, an application was filed by all the defendants, except the fourth defendant, on 17.12.2004 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC by claiming that they came to know about the exparte decree only on receipt of notice in the Execution Petition No. 206 of 2004. In the meantime, at the instance of the plaintiff, sale papers have been filed in the Execution Petition.

(iii) While so, on 16.12.2006, on behalf of the fourth defendant, who is said to be a lunatic, the seventh defendant filed two applications in I.A. No. 23112 and 23113 of 2004 in O.S. No. 15292 of 1996 to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 772 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.10.2002. These petitions were filed under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These petitions were dismissed by the trial court against which two Civil Revision Petitions were filed before this Court in CRP (NPD) No. 872 and 873 of 2007. This Court, by an order dated 13.02.2008, allowed both the Civil Revision Petitions with a direction to produce the mentally retarded fourth defendant before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court Chennai on 12.03.2008 and on such production, the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai shall refer him to a Psychiatrist in the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk to ascertain his mental illness, duration of the probable attack of the said illness etc., and after getting a report regarding his mental status, the trial court was directed to proceed further to dispose of the suit. Admittedly, as per the directions issued by this Court, the fourth defendant was neither produced before the trial court nor a Psychiatrist attached to the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk, Chennai to ascertain his mental status.

(iv) In the meantime, on 17.12.2004, the fifth defendant in the suit filed a Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.10.2002 by claiming that he came to know about the exparte decree only on 27.11.2004 when a paper publication was caused. This petition was returned on 29.12.2004 for complying with certain defects and it was re-presented on 21.06.2010. Once again the petitio