The court established that delay in legal proceedings must be justified with sufficient cause, emphasizing that negligence cannot be excused under the Limitation Act.

ORDER

The 3rd defendant viz., Thiru.Devandran has preferred this Civil Revision Petition having aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2022 made in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Principle District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

2. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the respondent has entered appearance through a counsel, he was not represented.

3. The revision petitioner herein had filed the above said petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1,515 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. on the following grounds:

(i) though he received the summons for the hearing on 23.03.2017, when he contacted the plaintiff (his brother) he told him that he is going to withdraw the case and upon believing his words he did not conduct the suit by engaging the counsel.

(ii) when he came to his native during the corona lockdown period, he came to know about the exparte judgment and when the plaintiff was attempting to mutate the revenue records, he came to know about the same.

(iii) thereafter, he engaged a counsel and came to know about the exparte judgment.

4. In the said application, before the Trial Court, though notice was served to the respondent, respondent had neither appeared before the Court nor chose to file his counter.

5. Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the revision petitioner, mainly believed the words of the respondent/plaintiff who is none other than his brother and with a fond hope that he would withdraw the case, as he was eking his livelihood by working in Bangalore. He would further contend that the petitioner came to his native during the corona lockdown he came to know about the exparte judgment passed in the said suit.

6. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against his family members for the relief of partition and for permanent injunction in O.S.No.22 of 2017. On first hearing date (on 23.03.2017), the present revision petitioner/3rd defendant did not appear before the Trial Court and he was set exparte. It appears that thereafter, witnesses of the plaintiff are examined and after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff's side, the exparte judgment was passed on 30.08.2017.

7. The moot question is whether the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.333 of 2022 is acceptable or not.

8. The well established principle of law in the matters filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that the Court has to view the delay leniently in order to advance the cause of justice. On the other hand, whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause in the application filed under of the .

9. It is worth mentioning of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), wherein, it is held as follows:

“23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.

24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands.

Paragraph 12 reads as under:

“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all