Delay in filing applications must be supported by sufficient cause; courts should not condone delays lightly as it may prejudice the opposite party.

ORDER :

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 16.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.105 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Salem.

Brief Facts

2. The revision petitioner is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.105 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, the first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2010 for Specific Performance against the petitioner/fourth defendant and the other three respondents. The suit was dismissed for default on 20.11.2012. Thereafter, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2952 days in filing the application to restore the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2010.

4. The revision petitioner/fourth defendant had filed a counter and contested the application. He has also marked Ex.R.1. The trial Court, passed a conditional order and condoned the delay. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/fourth defendant would submit that the trial Court had committed a grave error in condoning the huge delay of 2952 days without any sufficient cause. The petitioner/fourth defendant had marked Ex.R.1 a sworn affidavit dated 14.12.2012 before the Court stating that the first respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed an application to restore the suit on 14.12.2012 and thereafter, left it without pursuing the same and only subsequently, when the petitioner/4^th defendant had filed an application in ARD No.42 of 2020 seeking return of documents filed in the suit and only after receipt of Notice in ARD No.42/2020, they have come with the present application, seeking to condone the delay of 2952 days .

6. He would further submit that the only reason stated by the first respondent/plaintiff was that he was suffering from jaundice and no oral or documentary evidence have been filed by him to prove that he was suffering from jaundice for 2952 days and that there has been a huge delay. Learned counsel further submits that the Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts on plethora of decisions have held that the delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice should not cause prejudice to the opposite party.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/4^th defendant relied on the following decisions:-

(i) H.Guruswamy and Ors vs A.Krishnaiah Since deceased by Lrs (Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025) (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9719/2020 dated 08.01.2025.

(ii) Union of India and Another vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (d) through his LR reported in 2024 SCC Online 489 .

8. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had earlier filed revision petition before this Court in CRP No.2432 of 2012 seeking to complete the trial in O.S.No.105 of 2010 and this Court, by Order dated 16.10.2012 had directed the Trial Court to complete the trial on or before 31.01.2013. The first respondent/plaintiff, who was aware of the order, has wilfully not appeared before the Court and left the suit to be dismissed for default.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff was suffering from jaundice and therefore, there has been a delay of 2952 days. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts have held that liberal approach and justice oriented approach should be adopted in condoning the delay and the Trial Court rightly finding that the petitioner was affected with jaundice, condoned the delay and therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11. I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed seeking to condone the delay of 2952 days in filing the application to restore the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2010 which was dismissed for defaul