S RAJALAKSHMI Vs. AMBIGA DEIVASIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the dismissal order passed in C.M.P.No.1345 of 1996 in A.S.SR.No.47457 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

(2.) THE said petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for ejectment in O.S.No.3366 of 1987 before the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the same was decreed ex parte on 20.1.1993. Even though the revision petitioners herein subsequently filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, along with an application to condone the delay of 10 days, the trial court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, a revision was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 5.2.1996 and ultimately, an S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. on 7.5.1996 refusing to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. It is only thereafter, the petitioners thought of filing an appeal against the ex parte decree passed on 20.1.1993. As there was a delay of more than 3 1/2 years, they filed this petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The learned principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, holding that the delay is inordinate and that the grounds given also are not acceptable, dismissed the petition for condonation of the delay. Hence, the petitioners before the court below have come forward with this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel relied upon the decision on the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 wherein the Apex Court has held that all the litigants before the Court of law, including the state, have to be treated alike and accorded the same treatment and in the case of condonation of delay, the court should adopt a liberal approach. That was a case in which the state did not file the appeal in time, and the delay had occurred. Therefore, the Apex Court has observed that even though the State has not filed the appeal in time, the state also should be treated like any other litigant before the court. It is true that the Apex Court in that decision observed that the Court cannot presume that the delay was occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide?, as a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. At the same time, it also observed in that decision.