Genuine reasons for delay in filing petitions may justify condonation, allowing courts to adopt a liberal approach to safeguard substantial rights.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.426 of 2019 in O.S.No.277 of 2014 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem, dated 07.03.2020, wherein, these petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1227 days in filing the ex-parte decree, set aside petition and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the defendants in the main suit. The respondents herein have filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. These petitioners herein have entered into appearance in the suit through counsel and the first petitioner namely Gunasekaran was conducting the case on behalf of the other petitioners. While so, the Advocate has not informed about the stage of the case to the petitioners, thereafter, they came to know about the stage of the case when they received notice for passing final decree. His previous counsel was bedridden due to motor accident and thereby they are unable to contact their counsel therefore, there is a delay of 1227 days in filing exparte decree, set aside petition. The Trial Court has failed to consider the reason stated by the petitioners and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

3. According to the respondents, they are the plaintiffs in the main suit and they filed a suit for declaration of deeds as null and void and partition and permanent injunction. While so, the petitioners being the defendants have appeared through counsel before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has passed the preliminary decree as early as on 05.03.2016. The notice was issued in the final decree proceedings and thereafter, they have not taken any steps to set aside the exparte decree passed against them. They have filed a petition belatedly, without any valid reasons and the reasons stated by the petitioners are all not correct. Since, there is a huge delay of 1227 days, the Trial Court after taking into consideration of the long delay, correctly dismissed the petition. Therefore the present Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that these petitioners are the defendants in the main suit and they appeared through counsel and their counsel met with an accident and thereby they are unable to contact with their counsel. Thereafter, they came to know about passing of exparte decree only after serving notice in the final decree proceedings, hence they filed a petition before the Trial Court. The Trial Court without considering the reasons stated in the petition, dismissed the same. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on the following Judgments:

(1) C.N.Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C.Chandregowda reported in AIR

2012 SC 2528;

(2) N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 SC

3222;

(3) Ummer vs. Pottengal Subida and Others reported in 2018 15 SCC 127;

(4) Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others reported in 2019 6 SCC 387;

(5) Manjula and Lambert Sandou and 5 Others in C.R.P.No.408 of

2021 of this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioners have appeared through counsel and they failed to conduct the case and thereby the case was set ex-parte and thereafter, they appeared in the final decree proceedings. Immediately, after entered into appearance in the final decree proceedings, they failed to take any steps to set aside the exparte decree passed against them and after huge delay, they filed application. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed the reasoned order stating that the huge delay has not been properly explained by them and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the present Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel appearing fo