An application to condone the delay in execution proceedings, particularly under Order 21 Rule 106, is maintainable, and a pragmatic approach should be adopted in considering sufficient cause for delay, especially in cases involving public interest.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the orders dated 23.01.2015 passed in E.A.Nos.3257 & 3256 of 2014 in E.P.No.3944 of 2013 on the file of the Xth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. These civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders made in E .A. Nos.3256 & 3257 of 2014 dated 23.01.2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of three days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order and the application to set aside the ex-parte order where dismissed by learned Xth Asst Judge, City Civil Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the execution petition was posted for filing counter on 20.06.2014 and there was a delay in preparing the counter, as the back papers could not be collected from the previous counsel on record. Hence the petitioner was set ex-parte and further proceedings posted to 12.08.2014. The petitioner on coming to know about the ex-parte order had filed an application to set aside the same. In filing the application there has occasioned the delay of three days for which also a separate application to condone the delay was filed. The Court below without considering the applications on its proper perspective has dismissed them. Being aggrieved against the said orders, the present revision has been preferred.

3. On the contrary, the respondent case is that the application does not spell out any reasonable/ sufficient cause neither to condone the delay nor to set aside the exparte order and hence, is liable to be rejected. It is also the case of the respondent that the delay mentioned in the affidavit is much more than the delay specified. Hence, the respondent prayed for rejection of the applications filed by the petitioner.

4. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for the Development of Sports. Pursuant to its objects, the petitioner constructs and maintains various sports stadium, hostels, training centre in various districts including the City of Chennai which are meant to encourage participation by the public in various sporting activities. Mayor Radhakrihnan Stadium is a prominent Sports Stadium in the city of Chennai. The same has been developed into a sports arena for hockey, matching the international standards. One of the primary requirements for the players is the lodging facilities during the matches that are being conducted in the stadium.

5. When the petitioner started constructing a hostel facility as per the guidelines given under the Town and Country Planning Act, the respondent herein started to object. The respondent had claimed easementary right by stating that the building constructed by the petitioner would affect the air and light which it had been enjoying for a very long time. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a building for the benefit of accommodating sports persons has been constructed which is well within the boundaries of the petitioner’s property by giving more than the required setbacks as provided under the building regulations. If the claim of the respondents is to be accepted, the petitioner would be restrained from enjoying his property, which would be violating the Constitutional Rights under Article 300A. Further, the delay is only of three days which has been fully explained in the application.

6. The Court below without appreciating the same, has held that the petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay and has approached the Court in casual and lethargic manner. The petitioner had categorically specified that the delay had occurred due to the change in counsels which led to the delay in preparation of the counter. This reason has been simply ignored by the Court below and hence, the Court ought to have condoned the delay and should have taken up the application for s