A VAIRAVEL Vs. N SHANMUGHA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 31.01.2009 in I.A.No,414 of 2008 in O.S.No,836 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 829 days in filing an application to set aside the Exparte Decree dated 18.07.2006 passed in the suit.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No,414 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioner has projected the Xerox copies of medical records to the treatment meted out to his relatives and further the revision petitioner has not stated that his health has been affected and therefore he has not been in a position to take proper steps at the right time in regard to the conduct of case and as to why he has not filed the originals of the Xerox copies of the medical records has not been made mention of by the revision petitioner and except the reason that his relatives have taken medical treatment no other reason has been ascribed in regard to the delay of 829 days and as a matter of fact, the revision petitioner has not ascribed reasons for each and every day's delay and resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) THIS Court has heard the contentions advanced by both the counsels and noticed the same. It is to be noted that a Court of law cannot adopt a pedantic approach. Instead it has to adopt a purposeful and meaningful approach while dealing with the Section 5 condonation application. It is true that if Section 5 application under Limitation Act is allowed then the maximum thing that can happen is that the revision petitioner/defendant can be allowed to take part in the conduct of the main case and the cause can be decided on merits after providing opportunities to respective sides.