The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 19.03.2019 in I.A.No.919 of 2013 in O.S.No.433 of 2010, passed by the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 19.03.2019, in I.A.No.919 of 2013 in O.S.No.433 of 2010, passed by the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, allowing the impugned application to condone the delay of 660 days in filing the petition to restore the suit which was dismissed for default.

2. For the sake of convenience, the deceased 1st petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as “defendant” and the 1st respondent shall be referred to as “plaintiff”.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows :

- The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties, claiming that he holds the title and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

- The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement, wherein, he has taken a stand that he is the owner of the suit properties and he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

- While so, the suit came to be dismissed for default for non-appearance of the plaintiff on 14.11.2011.

- The plaintiff came up with the impugned application in I.A.No.919 of 2013 to condone the delay of 660 days in filing the petition to restore the suit,

- The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the impugned application on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the defendant.

- The plaintiff states that when he attempted to pay the cost to the counsel for the defendant, he refused to receive the same, stating that the defendant is going to file an appeal against the impugned order.

- The defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the order allowing the petition to condone the delay of 660 days.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit that the plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause for the delay and despite he being aware of the hearing date on 14.11.20211, the plaintiff has deliberately remained absent, which led to the dismissal of the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that the cause of delay projected by the plaintiff is not supported by any materials nor by evidence. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam [2022 Livelaw (SC) 227], the learned counsel contended that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and any delay beyond the limitation period can be condoned only when the applicant has proved the sufficient cause for the delay. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Devarajan N. v. Babu. C. [2021 (2) TLNJ 241 (Civil)], the learned counsel submitted that, conduct, negligence and inaction of a party has to be taken into consideration while considering the application to condone the delay and in the absence of any sufficient cause, the counter-party should not be unnecessarily made to face a litigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has shifted the onus on the defendant to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, whereas, it is for the plaintiff to prove his claim. The learned counsel further relied on the judgments of this Court in Jayaraman C. v. Srinivasan and others [2021 (1) TLNJ 49 (Civil)] and Seethalakshmi B. v. A.Chockalingam and others [2020 (1) TLNJ 454 (Civil)] and concluded his arguments by submitting that, in the absence of any cogent evidence on the side of the plaintiff to prove the sufficient cause for the delay, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the impugned application and hence, prayed for dismissal of the impugned application.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff went to Chennai to eke his livelihood, when the suit came up for h