The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 45 of 2016 of the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur, are the revision petitioners. The petitioners challenge the order of the Trial Court, dismissing I.A.No. 353 of 2021, which was filed for condonation of delay of 1,080 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 05.03.2018.

2. I have heard Mr.V.P. Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. K.Indupriya, for the petitioners and Mr. T. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Sathish Rajan, for the 1^st respondent and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents.

3. Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel, would first and foremost contend that although the delay appears to be huge, namely 1,080 days, the Trial Court failed to see that the petitioners had made out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Mr.V.P. Senguttuvel, learned counsel taking me through the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application, would contend that the plaintiff, who is none else than the son of the 1^st revision petitioner who died pending the revision and the brother of the 2^nd revision petitioner, who himself being an advocate, had taken advantage of his position and obtained an ex-parte decree behind the back of the petitioners. It is the further contention of Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel that the plaintiff has taken summons to an address which the plaintiff knew was not the address in which the petitioners were residing at that relevant point of time and therefore, he has played fraud in obtaining an ex-parte decree in his favour.

4. Mr. V.P. Senguttuvel, learned counsel, on merits, would contend that the plaintiff only challenges the document cancelling the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff's mother, namely the 1^st revision petitioner and does not challenge the settlement deed executed by the mother on the same day in favour of her daughter, that is the sister of the plaintiff. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the property has subsequently been settled in favour of the daughter, who was in fact the original owner of the property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1988. The learned counsel would therefore state that in the absence of any challenge to the settlement deed, there is no purpose in challenging the cancellation of the power of attorney alone. However, pending the present revision, the principal, namely the mother, also died and even though nothing may survive insofar as the relief of declaration is concerned, the relief of permanent injunction granted is working serious hardship to the present and lawful owner, namely the 2^nd revision petitioner. He would further state that the delay has been sufficiently explained and the petitioners did not have good assistance from the lawyers engaged by them as well and in such circumstances, when the delay has been properly explained, the learned Senior Counsel states that the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application and should have instead condoned the delay and given an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.

5.Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions, has relied on the following decisions:

1. Mool Chandra vs Union of India and another , reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625 ;

2. Inder Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 600;

3. Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation vs R.Mallika and another , reported