The court emphasized that the reason for condonation of delay must be bona fide and sufficient, and the court must exercise discretion judiciously, considering the rights of the opposite party.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 21.11.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil, made in I.A.No.127 of 2010 in A.S.No.133 of 2004.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant, whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioner's husband viz., Sukumaran Nair, is the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.44 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai.

3. The respondents filed the suit in O.S.No.44 of 1995, for specific performance of contract, directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. After contesting the suit, the suit was decreed, by the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2004. Against the Judgment and Decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.133 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Court, Nagercoil. Her husband/second defendant in the suit was the third respondent in the appeal. Pending appeal, her husband died. She filed a Memo, dated 05.02.2007, to record her as the legal heir of her deceased husband/third respondent. The respondents filed objections stating that the third respondent died leaving behind his wife, the petitioner herein and the daughter Chandrika and both of them should be recorded as legal representatives of the third respondent. Therefore, the appeal was posted for taking steps to implead the legal representatives of the third respondent in the appeal. The petitioner did not take any steps to implead her daughter. The appeal was dismissed for default on 12.11.2008.

4. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.127 of 2010 in A.S.No.133 of 2004 to condone the delay in filing the application to restore the first appeal.

5. The petitioner explained the delay stating that she was suffering from Osteoarthritis of her left ankle from 09.07.2004 and she could not prosecute the appeal, as she was getting treatment. Her daughter is married and living with her husband. The husband of the petitioner was giving instructions to the counsel to conduct the appeal. After his demise, the petitioner could not contact the counsel to give sufficient instructions for further proceedings of appeal, as she was taking treatment from Amirtha Institute of Medical Sciences, Cochin, Kerala State, from 09.07.2004. She was prevented by sufficient causes from taking steps for impleading the legal representatives of her husband, since she was suffering from illness and taking treatment and her husband, who was looking after the appeal died, the delay in filing the application for restoration has occurred. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents stated that the petitioner was moving about various places and hence, her statement that she could not meet her counsel is not correct. Further, in another suit in O.S.No.192 of 1999, she filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that she was suffering from rheumatism since 1982. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the said Interlocutory Application.

6. Before the District Court, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents, the second respondent was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

7. The learned Judge considering the pleadings, materials on record, Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, dismissed the application. Against the said order of dismissal, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

8. Heard Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Anandhavalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit.

10. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the pe