Ltd.,Authorized dealer for Pal Peugot Ltd.,Omalur Main Road,Salem – 9. .. Second v. S. Raghunathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPALC.R.P. NPD. No.704 of 2004M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.,Authorized dealer for Pal Peugot Ltd.,Omalur Main Road,Salem – 9. .. Second defendant/Petitioner/Revision Petitioner VersusS. Raghunathan ..Plaintiff Respondent/RespondentThe Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 ofCivil Procedure Code praying to set aside the judgment and decreepassed in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999 dated 04.12.2003 byAdditional Subordinate Judge, Salem. For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Parasaran For Respondent : Mr. V. NicholasORDER The Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the applicant inI.A.No.184 of 2003 and the second defendant in the suit O.S.No.558 of1999 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.The Civil Revision petitioner has filed an Interlocutory ApplicationNo. 184 of 2003 praying to condone the delay of 539 days in filing theapplication to set aside the exparte decree passed against therevision petitioner on 10.07.2001, under section 5 of the LimitationAct. In the said application, the revision petitioner / applicant/second defendant has inter-alia stated that for non-filing of writtenstatement, the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant was setexparte and that exparte decree was passed on 10.07.2001 and the thenAdvocate for the Civil revision petitioner /applicant/second defendantdid not inform the factum of exparte decree to the revision petitionerand only when the civil revision petitioner received the executionnotice, the civil revision petitioner came to know about the passingof exparte decree.2.In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it isstated that the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant has notfiled the written statement along with the application to set aside https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the exparte decree and that the applicant has to explain the delay ofeach and every day and that the revision petitioner/ applicant/seconddefendant ought to have been diligent in defending the suit and thatthere is no bonafide or merit in the application, which has been filedonly to drag on the proceedings and therefore prayed for dismissal ofthe said application.3.The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in his orderdated 04.12.2003 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No. 558 of 1999has observed that each and every day delay was not explained by theapplicant and only to defeat the execution proceedings and with a viewto delay the proceedings, the present application has been filed andfinally dismissed the application.4.As against the said order passed by the learned AdditionalSubordinate Judge, Salem dated 04.12.2003 in I.A.No.184 of 2003 inO.S.No.558 of 1999, the present Civil Revision Petition has beenpreferred by the Civil Revision Petitioner/applicant/ seconddefendant.5.The learned counsel for the civil revision petitionercontends that it was due to the mistake of the Advocate in notproperly advising the civil revision petitioner/applicant/seconddefendant, the written statement was not filed before the lower Courtand that in the said I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999, thecivil revision petitioner/applicant / second defendant has shownsufficient cause and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil RevisionPetition.6.It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 539 days infiling the I.A.No.184 of 2003 in O.S.No.558 of 1999 to set aside theexparte decree. The learned counsel for the Civil RevisionPetitioner pressed into service the decision "(1998) 7 Supreme CourtCases 123 " (N. Balakrishnan ..vs.. M. Krishnamurthy), wherein it isobserved as follows :-"A. Limitation Act, 1963 – S.5 – condonation of delay –Discretion of Court – How to exercise – Guidelinesstated – Words "sufficient cause" should be construedliberally – Acceptability of explanation for the delayis the sole criterion, length of delay not relevant –In absence of anything showing malafide or deliberatedelay as a dilatory tactic, court should normallycondone the delay - However, while doing so Courtshould also keep in mind the consequent litigationexpenses to be incurred by the opposite party and shouldcompensate him accordingly – Where a court condonesdelay in positive exercise of discretion, superior courtand more particularly the revisional court should notnormally disturb the same – But where request forcondonation of delay is refused, it would be open to thesuperior court to come to its own finding on the basisof explanation for the delay given by the party – delay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the part of defendant – appellant of 883 days inapproaching the court against dismissal of hisapplication to set aside exparte decree passed againsthim – Non-action on the part of his advocate explainedas cause for the delay – Appellant also complainingabout conduct of the advocate before Consumer Forum andgetting Rs.50,000/- as compensation – Appellant'sexplanation for the delay accepted and delay condoned bytrial court – But in revision High Court setting asidethe order of trial court on ground that appellant wasnegligent and was not careful enough to meet theadvocate to verify the stage of the proceedings for along time – Held, High Court in revision erred ininterfering with the exercise of jurisdiction by trialCourt in condoning the delay when appellant's conductdid not as a whole warrant castigating him as anirresponsible litigant having regard to present busy andpreoccupied life."In the aforesaid decision, it is held that " Rules of limitation arenot meant to destroy the rights of the parties and they are meant tosee that the parties did not resort to dilatory tactics, but seektheir remedy promptly and the object of providing a legal remedy is torepair the damage caused by reason of legal injury."7.It is pertinent to point out that generally a party does notstand to benefit by filing an application late and refusing to condonethe delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at thenascent stage and cause of justice being defeated. As against this,the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on meritsafter hearing the litigants. A pedantic approach should not be madeby the Court of law while dealing with the condonation of delaymatters. On the other hand, the courts of law are to adopt apragmatic approach. In this connection, it is not out of place tomake a mention that when substantial justice and technicalconsideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantialjustice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim anyvested right in injustice being done because of non deliberate delay.As a matter of fact, a party does not stand the benefit by resortingto delay. Per contra, he runs a serious risk. It cannot be againsaid that judiciary is respected not on account of its power tolegalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable ofremoving injustice and is expected to do so.8.As far as the present case is concerned, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the term ' Sufficient Cause', must beviewed liberally and taking a liberal view in the matter, this Courtis satisfied with the reason furnished in I.A.No.184 of 2003 inO.S.No.558 of 1999 for the condonation of delay of 539 days and allowsthe Civil Revision Petition with a direction that the Civil RevisionPetitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) tothe Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai, within two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ weeks from the date of this order and produce a receipt before theRegistrar General, High Court, Madras, failing which the CivilRevision Petition will stand dismissed automatically without anyfurther reference. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar mraTo1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem2.The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai.3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Medication and Conciliation Centre,Chennai.4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+1cc to Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Advocate Sr 72770+1cc to Mr.V.Nicholas,Advocate Sr 72816VC (CO)km/4.1.C.R.P. NPD. No.704 of 2004