The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court applies a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the significance of lack of bona fides, the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration, and the relevance of the conduct, behavior, and attitude of a party in considering delay condonation.

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 09.12.2016 made in I.A. No. 604 of 2012 in O.S. No. 59 of 2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry.

2. The facts of the case is as follows :

The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 59/2007, Sub Court, Puducherry. The 1st respondent herein, filed the suit, for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule mentioned property. According to the petitioner, the suit schedule property is a Government Poramboke land. Upon continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner along with her husband, the Government has issued L.G.R patta in her favour. The trial court framed issues in the suit and subsequently the petitioner was called absent, on 19.04.2010 the trial court passed an ex-parte decree, against the revision petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 882 days, in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever and old age diseases, due to above disablement she could not attend the court on the hearing date, resulting ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court. She was unable to attend the Court for cross examination of the plaintiff/1st respondent, due to the abovesaid bona-fide reasons. It has been further stated that the plaintiff/1st defendant, without disclosing true material facts, has filed the said suit, claiming the right of ownership of the schedule mentioned property.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. Eventhough the petitioner has stated sufficient causes for condoning the delay, the lower court did not consider the facts as well as the catena of decisions, has erroneously dismissed the said application. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, the present Revision has been filed before this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the said application filed by the petitioner is false and fictitious. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would invite the attention of this Court, the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, before the Court below in the I.A.No.604 of 2012, pointing out that the petitioner/1st defendant has not shown any sufficient cause for the absence on the date of hearings and also the conduct of the petitioner, uninterested to prosecute the case but only with an intention to adopt the dilatory practice and drag on the suit proceedings. The only motive of the petitioner was to deprive the 1st respondent/plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the decree in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent has also produced the factual matrix of the suit proceedings, to show the dilatory tactics of the petitioner/1st defendant to drag on the proceedings by filing fictitious petitions in the suit. Therefore, there is no sufficient reasons in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay and seeks dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the material available on record.

6. The point for consideration before this Court is that, whether the delay of 882 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree can be allowed or not. The details and the particulars furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the trial court in the I.A. No. 604/2012, is as follows :-

The written statement was filed by the petitioner/1st defendant therein, was on 27.09.2007. The 1st respondent/plaintiff PW-1 filed her chief examination affidavit on 02.03.201