The sufficiency of cause for condoning extensive delay must be adequately demonstrated, with reliance on established legal precedents.

ORDER :

1. The 1st defendant, whose application to condone the delay of 4892 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the delay is 4892 days, the trial Court mechanically rejected the application without appreciating the reasons given by the petitioner to explain the delay. He would also state that the judgment passed by the trial Court is a non-speaking order and in clear violation of mandate of Section 2(9) r/w Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC and on this ground alone, learned Senior Counsel contends that decree would have to go, being a nullity, as held by Courts repeatedly and in such circumstances, the petitioner would have to be given an opportunity to test the suit claim on merits.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that one of the Executive Directors of the petitioner, by name Vetrivel was attending the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner and there was no occasion for the other Directors to approach the Court, who, in fact, subsequent to being aware of the suit proceedings initially filed the application and in such circumstances, the delay having been explained, the trial Court should have proceeded to condone the delay. He would also submit that there has been yet another suit filed before this Court in C.S.No.920 of 2003 by the revision  petitioner, where the respondent/plaintiff herein is the 6th defendant. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at the hands of the revision petitioner and this Court, by order dated 12.12.2003, had also granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants therein, including the respondent herein from trespassing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that till date, the said interim order remains in force and the suit is also pending and in such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel prays for the revision being allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the delay is more than 13 years and the revision petitioner is a private limited Company and the reasons assigned for explaining the inordinate delay of 4892 days, throwing the blame on the former Director, can never be an acceptable cause, much less sufficient cause, to condone the huge delay. He would further submit that even in the suit filed in the year 1994 in O.S.No.107 of 1994, the respondent had the benefit of an interim order, till the suit came to be decreed and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now contend that subsequently they had filed a suit before this Court, which is pending in C.S.No.920 of 2003 and since there was an interim order in the said suit, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent also relies on the recent pronouncement of this Court in R. Rasappan Vs. D. Rajalakshmi, 2025 SCC Online Mad 4068, besides also the order in I.A.No.656 of 2001 in O.S.No.137 of 2001, where the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC came to be allowed on contest and the same was also become final, with no appeal or revis