K KARUPANNASAMY Vs. N VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed the civil revision petition as against the order dated 02. 3. 2007 in I. A. No. 188 of 2005 in o. S. No. 831 of 2001 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in dismissing the condone delay application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation act to set aside the exparte decree passed on 26. 6. 2002.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I. A. No. 188 of 2005 dated 02. 3. 2007, has come to the conclusion that the application has been filed after a delay of 2 1/2 years, after recovering from the illness of jaundice etc. and further that the petitioners have allowed an exparte decree being passed against them in view of the fact that they do not have a good cause in the main case and finally when execution petition has been filed and later when sale deed has been executed by the Court, at that time the filing of the application is not to be accepted and even for allowing the application with costs, there are no sufficient reasons assigned and therefore, the application has not been filed with a bona fide intention and since the application has no merit and substance and accordingly, dismissed the same without costs.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants submits that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the main suit has been filed for the relief of specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement dated 26. 09. 2000 and the petitioners have come to know about the exparte decree only when they received notice in the execution petition and the petitioners have explained the circumstances which prevented them from taking part in the suit proceedings and there is no mistake on their part and that their counsel has not informed about the stage of the suit proceedings and as a matter of fact, the petitioners must be given an opportunity of hearing and inasmuch as the petitioners have a good defence in the suit and the purported sale agreement is altogether for a different transaction and as such, the parties must be allowed to contest the main case on merits and moreover, the petitioners are innocent villagers should have no knowledge about the consequences of the litigation and they have engaged a counsel and entrusted the matter to him, therefore, the parties cannot be penalised for the mistake on the part of the counsel and also the fact remains that the length of delay is immaterial and that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties and the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury and the term 'sufficient cause' has to be liberally construed to advance the cause of substantial justice and in any event, the order of the trial Court are unsustainable in law and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition.