The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of substantial justice and a liberal approach in considering the Section 5 of the Limitation Act to allow the delay condonation application.

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A.No.1572 of 2013 in O.S.No.4141 of 2010 dated 10.07.2013 by allowing this revision.

2. The case of the revision petitioners is that they are the defendants in O.S.No.4141 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from putting up any construction by encroaching upon suit ‘A’ schedule property and for mandatory injunction to remove any construction put up over the suit ‘A’ schedule property.

3. According to the petitioners they purchased the property bearing No. 12/29A 3rd Street, Narasingapuram, Maduvankarai, Guindy, Chennai under a registered sale deed dated 20.06.2007. The respondent/plaintiff is the adjacent owner of the property in plot No.29. Since, the petitioners herein migrated from Cudaloor and purchased the above said property and started construction over the same, the respondent/plaintiff herein got enmity with the petitioners herein and prevented the petitioners from putting up construction in their plot as if they have encroached upon the property of the plaintiff. In that regard the respondent herein filed the above said vexatious suit against the petitioners herein. The erstwhile counsel engaged by petitioners herein did not inform about the stage of the suit and the ex-parte decree passed against the petitioners herein on 11.07.2011. On verification the petitioners herein came to know about the ex-parte decree and enquired with the erstwhile counsel regarding the ex-parte decree passed against them, he has given change of Vakalath along with the suit papers to the petitioners herein. There after immediately they filed application to set aside the ex-parte decree through the present counsel with a delay of 487 days in I.A.no.1572 of 2013. After elaborate enquiry, the learned judge has erroneously dismissed the condone delay application by order dated 10.07.2013 which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The respondent has opposed the condone delay application by filing counter affidavit and contended that the petitioners herein had filed caveat petition before filing the suit. After filing the suit, they took time to file counter to the interim injunction application. But the defendants delayed the matter without filing counter, hence the trail court granted interim injunction and also appointed Advocate Commissioner. Thereafter the petitioners herein have not participated in the suit proceedings and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 30.11.2010. The petitioners herein filed application to set aside the ex-parte order along with written statement and the same was allowed. Thereafter the trail was commenced and P.W.1 was examined on 01.07.2011 and the suit was adjourned for cross examination of P.W.1 by the defendants on 06.07.2011 and also on 11.07.2011. Since, the defendants did not appear to cross examine P.W.1 and therefore the suit was decreed on 11.07.2011. The reason assigned by the petitioners herein to condone the delay of 487 days is not true and the absence of the petitioners herein is due to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner which is against the defendants. The petitioners herein knowing full well about the merits and demerits of their case, allowed the suit to be decreed ex-parte. Hence, the respondent herein prayed to dismiss the condone delay application.

5. I have heard Mr. E.P. Senniyan Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

6. Upon considering the rival submission, this court has to see whether the order dismissing the application to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree is warranted interference by this Court or not? In this case, the petition