The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the key consideration under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach should be adopted in condoning delay.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.524 of 2014 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the suit properties belongs to her and for possession and also mesne profits. The said suit was decreed on 21.12.2009.

3. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.524 of 2014 to condone the delay of 1477 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree alleging that they have no knowledge about the suit filed by the respondent and no summons were served on the petitioners. When the respondent was trying to alienate the suit property to a third party, the petitioners came to know about the suit filed by respondent and on 08.05.2013, the petitioners have given paper publication. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree with delay condonation petition. The delay of 1477 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree is neither willful nor wanton.

4. The respondent remained ex parte in I.A.No.524 of 2014.

5. Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.524 of 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

6. I heard Mr. S. Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Shankarganesh, learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court failed to exercise its discretion vested in proper manner and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the respondent is one for declaration and for recovery of possession. He submitted that though there was a discrepancy in the averments made by the petitioners and facts as found by the trial Court relating to knowledge of the suit, the approach of the trial Court in disbelieving the petitioners on the said basis is erroneous. The learned counsel further submitted that despite notice, the respondent has not entered appearance in I.A.No.524 of 2014 and contested the petition. In this circumstances, the trial Court ought to have been liberal in its approach.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the respondent was remained ex parte in I.A.No.524 of 2014 and has not contested the same, the trial Court having found that the delay has not been properly explained, dismissed the application of the petitioners. He would submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the trial Court.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners.

10. In its order, the trial Court pointed out that after the receipt of suit summons, the petitioners have engaged one Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate and filed vakalat. When the suit was posted on 16.12.2009 for filing written statement, the petitioners have not filed the written statement and they were called absent and set ex parte and thereafter, on 21.12.2009, ex parte decree was passed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they have no knowledge about the filing of the suit by the respondent is unacceptable. Further, the delay 1477 days has not been properly explained by the petitioners by adducing oral evidence.

11. Admittedly, in order to show sufficient cause for the delay, the petitioners have not adduced any oral evidence. The trial Court had rightly recorded that only after entering appearance through their advocate and for non-filing of the written statement, the petitioners were set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 21.12.2009. The petitioners have filed petition seeking to