KUPPAYEE AMMAL Vs. ATHIAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner is the second defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi. The revision petitioner/2nd defendnat filed I. A. No. 148 of 2003 before the Lower Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 529 days in filing Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. Application.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the suit is laid for specific performance by the respondent/plaintiff against the three defendants in the suit and the civil revision petitioner/2nd defendant is one among them. In the suit, an ex-parte decree was passed on 31. 07. 2001. In I. A. No. 148 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner/2nd defendant before the Lower Court, she has not made any endeavour to explain the cause much less a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the considered opinion of this Court. It is established fact that the Court of law has to adopt a liberal approach in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. It is not in dispute that one should not adopt a pedantic approach in dealing with the said application. It cannot be said that substantial justice deserves to be preferred in preference to technical consideration when the same are pitted against each other. As a matter of fact, in general, there is no presumption that the delay has occurred deliberately or on account of mala fide or on account of culpable negligence by referring dilatory tactics a party does not stand to benefit. The term 'sufficient cause' must be given a meaningful interpretation to serve the ends of justice-that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. But, a perusal of the affidavit in I. A. No. 148 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner/2nd defendant indicates that the reason for condonation of delay has not been explained and no endeavour was also made by the revision petitioner/2nd defendant to that effect.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff in the counter filed to I. A. No. 148 of 2003 has among other things averred that in pursuance of the decree passed on 31. 07. 2001 after depositing the balance amount into Court as per the directions of the Court, E. P. No. 5 of 2002 was filed on 25. 01. 2002 by the respondent/plaintiff and when a notice was served on the revision petitioner/2nd defendant, she did not enter appearance on 20. 02. 2002, 22,03,2002 and 17. 04. 2002 and non-judicial stamps were produced into Court and a regular sale deed was executed by the Trial Court on behalf of the defendants which was also registered and the sale deed was found to be a correct one resulting in culmination of E. P. No. 5 of 2002 on 11. 02. 2003.