D MURALIDHARAN Vs. PAVATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 6. 1. 2004, passed in I. A. No. 122/2003 in unnumbered suit on the file of the principal Sub-Court, Erode (now numbered as O. S. No. 105/2004 on the file of the principal District Munsif's court, Erode ).

(2.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 105/2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court , erode is the revision petitioner before this court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 6. 1. 2004 made in I. A. No. 122/2003 by which the trial court condoned the delay of 1664 days in representing the suit papers on condition that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to be paid to the other side as cost. Subsequent to the order dated 6. 1. 2004 the suit was numbered as o. S. No. 105/2004.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a difference between a petition filed for condoning the delay in filing and a petition filed to condone the delay in re-presentation and more liberal approach should be shown by the court in the case of the latter. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of this court reported in 1978 TLNJ 332 (The General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and another vs. T. Shadrak) and the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1993 tlnj 375 (Y. Cusbar v. K. Subbarayan ). The learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (2) CTC 533 (Balakrishnan, N. v. M. Krishnamurthy) and 2003 (11) SCC 727 (Bhagmal v. M. P. Coop. Marketing & consumer Federation Ltd.) to contend that when the delay has been condoned by the court below by exercising its discretion, the same cannot be interfered with by the court either under Sec. 115 of C. P. C. , or under Article 227 of the constitution of India. He relied on the decision of this court reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 439 (Yanaimal Thottam Trust v. B. Lakshmanan) to submit that when technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the courts should always be in favour of the substantial justice rather than technicalities. He also relied on the following decisions to submit that the word "sufficient cause" is to be liberally interpreted and courts must adopt pragmatic approach in justice oriented manner instead of technical detection of sufficient cause: 1) 1995 (2) L. W. 220 (Rama Iyer, P. v. V. Ramaswami Naidu) 2) 2005 (3) SCC 752 (State of Nagaland v. LIPOK AO) 3) 2006 (2)CTC 388 (Syed Nusarathullah v. Natarajan) 4) 2006 (1)CTC 191 (Mohan, S. v. Cruz Mary) 5) 2006 (1)CTC 45 (Joint Commissioner, (H. R. &c. E) v. Ambasamudram Taluk.