SEEMATY BEGAM Vs. SANGARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.23 of 2014 in an unnumbered A.S.No. of 2014 dated 14.07.2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni.

(2.) It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that she is the sole defendant in an original suit in O.S.No.25 of 2008 filed for the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 01.10.2013. Subsequently, she filed the appeal suit on 006.2014 but the same was filed with the delay of 183 days. However when she preferred the memorandum of appeal, she filed an affidavit along with a Petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.23 of 2014 to condone the delay in preferring the appeal suit by stating that since she is the Kosha lady and was unable to mobilize fund to meet out the expenses towards Court fee and other incidental expenses. However, counter statement was filed by the respondent by objecting the reasons adduced by the Revision Petitioner.

(3.) The learned lower appellate Court was not convinced for the reasons stated in the affidavit to condone the delay of 183 days and by its order dated 14.07.2015 dismissed the said application. Against the order of dismissal, in the instant civil revision petition is filed. According to the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner that the reasons adduced in the delay-condonation petition is reasonable and the Revision Petitioner has no deliberate intention to file the appeal suit with delay. Moreover, he also pointed out that the delay of 183 days is not a huge delay and in this regard, he has relied on the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Sarasu Vs Ravi, (2016) 5 CTC 117 wherein, it is held that if an application filed under section 5 of the limitation Act is allowed by the Court to advance the cause of substantial justice, then the maximum that can happened is that a party will be allowed to partake in the main arena of legal proceedings and the main cause can be decided on merits. Per contra, if a meritorious matter is thrown out at the threshold at earliest the cause of justice will be substantially defeated. In a condonation of delay application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act 1963, the length and breadth of the delay is not material/relevant factor.