A party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause; mere procedural deficiencies in prior judgments do not automatically justify delay.

ORDER :

1. The first defendant in O.S. No.294 of 2017, aggrieved by dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2021 which was filed for condonation of delay of 655 days in filing the Application to set aside the exparte decree, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Sriram Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.A.Syed Shuhaibb, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Valliappan, inviting my attention to the relief sought for in the plaint and the judgment passed in the suit, would contend that the decree is a nullity, since the same does not conform to Order XX, Rule 4 CPC . The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the first respondent/plaintiff has relied on only photo copies of documents and not even the originals have been exhibited before the Trial Court. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel would fortify his contentions stating the judgment is a nullity and therefore the delay has to be condoned and in support of his arguments, he would place reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Ltd. , reported in, 2011 (3) CTC 168 ;

(ii) R.Stella Vs. Antony Francis , reported in, (2019) SCC Online Mad 24941;

(iii) Meenatchi Vs. Andal , reported in, (2020) SCC Online Mad 14583;

(iv) S.Baskar Vs. S.Ranjithkumar and Others, reported in, (2024) SCC Online Mad 8748;

(v) Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in, (2025) SCC Online SC 600; and

(vi) R.Rasappan Vs. D.Rajalakshmi (died) and others, reported in, 2025 (4) CTC 337 .

4. Relying on the ratio laid by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that when the Trial Court has not passed a reasoned judgment and Courts have repeatedly held such judgments to be nullity, no serious prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondent, if the delay is condoned and an opportunity is given to the revision petitioner to contest the suit on merits.

5. Per contra, Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the fact that the suit was filed before the Trial Court on 08.11.2017 and summons was duly served on the first defendant, the revision petitioner herein on 05.12.2017 itself. After giving adequate opportunities, the revision petitioner was set exparte for not appearing and filing written statement, on 28.02.2018 and thereafter, exparte evidence was taken on 31.07.2019 and decree came to be passed on 17.09.2019. It was much later on 02.08.2021, when the revision petitioner filed the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 655 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that the revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.80 of 2016 against the Panchayat President, Pollachi and the said suit was also dismissed for his non appearance. Further, in Appeal Nos. 128 to 131 of 2022, the revision petitioner sought to implead himself before the Appellate Authority of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and the same came to be dismissed on 29.11.2023 and the revision petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the said orders, which also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 08.02.2024, imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- on the revision petitioner.

7. He would also point out that despite pendency of the revision and knowing that an exparte decree has been passed and has not yet been set aside, the revision petitio