Condonation of delay requires establishing 'sufficient cause' through diligent conduct. A liberal approach to the law of limitation cannot be invoked to revive stale matters or excuse negligence when the applicant lacks bona fides and fails to provide substantiated justification for the delay.

ORDER :

N. MALA, J.

(1) The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2024, in IA.No.2/2024 in OS.No.129/2016, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sholingur, dismissing the petitioner's application to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the exparte order passed in the aforesaid suit.

(2) The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed the suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction. The petitioner filed the written statement in the suit and thereafter, remained absent. Therefore, on 10.06.2024, an exparte decree was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed IA.No.2/2024, to condone the delay of 70 days, in filing the petition seeking to set aside the exparte decree. As the Trial Court dismissed the application, the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

(3) The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, submitted that due to ill-health, he was not able to contact his counsel on the day when the exparte decree was passed. The petitioner further submitted that due to the death of the first plaintiff, and in view of the amended plaint, the delay in filing the Section 5 application occurred. The petitioner, therefore submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the aforesaid circumstances and hence, prayed that the petition be allowed.

(4) The 6^th respondent filed a counter, denying all the averments made in the petition. The 6^th respondent denied that due to ill-health, the petitioner was not able to attend the hearing on 10.06.2024. The 6^th respondent further contended that the petitioner at all stages of the proceedings, remained exparte and therefore, there is absolutely no bona fides in the application. The 6^th respondent contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross examine PW1, however, he was not ready and hence, he was set exparte on 11.01.2023. The 6^th respondent further contended that the suit was posted for several hearings and only thereafter, the exparte decree was passed on 10.06.2024. The 6^th respondent contended that the petition was filed only to prolong the proceedings and therefore, deserved no merit.

(5) The Trial Court, after perusing the entire materials on record, found that the contentions of the petitioner that due to ill-health, he was not able to contact his counsel on 10.06.2024, was baseless and not satisfactory. The Trial Court further found that the contention of the petitioner that the delay occurred since the legal heirs of the first plaintiff had to be brought on record, was also untenable since the suit papers and case records revealed that the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff, were already brought on record by the plaintiffs even during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court, therefore found that the reasons cited by the petitioner were unsatisfactory and not convincing. The Trial Court, on the basis of the case history, found that the petitioner had wantonly prolonged the case for eight years and that the petition lacked bona fides and hence, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was not huge and therefore, the Trial Court, on a liberal consideration of the facts, ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner and condoned the delay, by imposing cost. The learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the matter to be decided on merits rather than throwing it out on technicalities. Th