LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-318

P KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. GOWRI

Decided On November 07, 2008
P. KRISHNAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
GOWRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed these revision petitions as against the common order dated 24.09.2007 made in I.A.Nos.625 of 2005 and 586 of 2006 in O.S.No.244 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, allowing I.A.No.625/2005 filed for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit on 14.10.1998 and I.A.No.586 of 2006 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2412 days in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14.10.1998.

(2.) THE trial Court has allowed the aforesaid interlocutory applications directing the respondents/legal representatives of the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.500/- in each application as compensatory amount to be paid within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order.

(3.) IT is to be pointed out that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be applied by a Court of law in a meaningful fashion which aims at deliverance of substantial justice. A liberal approach is normally required when a Court of law deals with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay. Generally speaking, a party does not stand to benefit by preferring an application in regard to condonation of delay or in regard to filing of an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. Refusing to condone the delay may result in a good matter being thrown out at the early stage and cause of justice being defeated. Per contra, if the application is allowed, the maximum that can happen is that a cause will be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In short, when substantial justice and technical suggestions are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. If a party resorts to delay, then he is at serious risk. But, the Court is to find out whether that delay is deliberate or a non-deliberate one.