A substantial right accrued in favor of the decree holder, with courts asserting the stringent application of limitation laws and their public policy implications.

ORDER :

N. MALA, J.

1. CRP.No.107/2026 is filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2024, in IA.No.1/2023, rejecting the petitioners’ application to condone the delay of 2833 days in seeking to set aside the exparte decree, that was passed on 31.08.2025.

2. CRP.No.6471/2025 is filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2024, in IA.No.2/2023, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners to set aside the exparte decree, dated 31.08.2015.

3. The petitioners are defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance, to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance to the registered Sale Agreement dated 09.01.2013 executed by the defendants and also for injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property to 3^rd parties.

4. Though the defendants entered appearance in the suit through a counsel, no written statement was filed and therefore, the defendants were set exparte on 21.04.2012, and an exparte decree was passed on 31.08.2015. Pursuant to the exparte decree, the plaintiff deposited sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, before the Court and had the Sale Deed executed in his favour through process of the Court in Execution Proceedings. Long after the sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff through Court, the defendants filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 2833 days. The Trial Court, finding absolutely no justifiable reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 2833 days, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the petitioners filed the above Civil Revision Petition, for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court should adopt a liberal approach and a justice oriented approach, so as to give an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. The learned counsel further submitted that in order to render substantial justice, this Court should consider condoning the delay on such terms as this Court deems fit.

6. Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the unexplained, inordinate delay of 2833 days, cannot be condoned and that, this Court will not stretch the liberal approach to an extent where the purport of the Limitation Act is frustrated. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

8. Before entering into the controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to certain facts as borne by the records.

9. The petitioners entered into a Sale Agreement on 09.01.2013 with the respondent to sell the suit schedule properties for a sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs and on the same day, the petitioners received an advance of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent. A registered Sale Agreement was executed on 09.01.2013. since the petitioners failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent, the respondent filed a suit in OS.No.262/2014, on 03.07.2014. On receipt of summons from the Court, the petitioners entered appearance in the suit through their counsel. Thereafter, even though the petitioners were given sufficient time to file their written statements, they failed to file the written statement and so, they were set exparte on 21.04.2015. After a lapse of nearly four months, the suit was decreed exparte on 31.08.2015, and in pursuance of the exparte decree, the respondent deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh with the Court and had the Sale Deed executed in his favour through the process of Court, on 25.04.2018 in the Execution Proceedings. The sale was registered on 24.07.2018. Pursuant to the sale in his favour, the