Absence of sufficient cause and lack of bona fides preclude liberal approach in condoning delay.

The Petitioner (Defendant) challenged an order by the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur, which dismissed his application (I.A. No. 2 of 2024) to condone a 70-day delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex-parte decree.

The underlying suit was filed in 2016 for declaration of title and injunction.

The Petitioner filed a written statement but subsequently failed to appear for cross-examination on six separate dates between October 2022 and January 2023, leading to him being set ex-parte on 11.01.2023.

An ex-parte decree was eventually passed on 10.06.2024.

The Petitioner claimed the delay was due to ill-health and the need to bring legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff on record.

1. Whether the Petitioner demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to warrant condonation of the 70-day delay.

2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing a liberal approach in light of the Petitioner’s litigation conduct and the veracity of the reasons provided.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause".

It relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Kathiji, which advocated a liberal approach for substantial justice.

It tempered this with Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, which held that a liberal approach cannot defeat the law of limitation or revive stale matters without mandatory sufficient cause.

It applied Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, establishing that negligence, lack of bona fides, or inaction by a party disentitles them to discretionary relief, regardless of the length of delay.

The Court found the Petitioner’s explanations to be factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence. Specifically, the claim that delay occurred because legal heirs needed to be brought on record was deemed false, as the records showed the legal heirs had already joined the suit during its pendency.

The Court observed that the Petitioner offered no explanation for his absence during the 1.5-year interval between being set ex-parte (January 2023) and the final decree (June 2024).

The Court reasoned that the "liberal approach" is not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of "sufficient cause".

Given that the suit had pended for eight years and the Petitioner repeatedly failed to participate in the trial despite multiple opportunities, the Court concluded his conduct was indolent and lacked bona fides.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming the Trial Court's order. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no costs were awarded.