### Medical Certification Source Irrelevant if Sufficient Cause and Absence of Mala Fides are Established under Section 5

The Plaintiff (Revision Petitioner) filed O.S. No. 192 of 2013 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and permanent/mandatory injunctions

On August 20, 2018, the Trial Court passed an *ex-parte* decree against the second defendant (Respondent) after she failed to appear

The Respondent subsequently filed I.A. No. 80 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone a delay of 470 days in filing the application to set aside the *ex-parte* decree, citing viral fever and Siddha treatment as the cause for her absence

She supported her claim with a medical certificate (Ex-P.1) and oral testimony (P.W.1)

The Trial Court allowed the application subject to costs of Rs. 3,000/-

The Plaintiff challenged this order via the present Civil Revision Petition

Whether there was a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 470 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, given the discrepancy between the claimed "Siddha treatment" and the produced "Allopathy medical certificate"

Whether the Trial Court exercised its discretion legally and regularly in allowing the application to condone the delay

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of prescribed periods in certain cases upon showing "sufficient cause"

The court emphasized the settled principle that the length of delay is immaterial; rather, the sufficiency and acceptability of the explanation are the primary considerations

It further relied on the precedent *M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam* (CDJ 2001 SC 404), which advocates for a liberal approach to condoning delay to ensure matters are decided on their merits in adherence to the principles of natural justice

The Court evaluated the Revision Petitioner's argument regarding the discrepancy in medical evidence—specifically that the Respondent claimed to undergo Siddha treatment but produced an Allopathy certificate (Ex-P.1)

The Court reasoned that the primary question is whether the party was sick during the relevant period, not the specific branch of medicine practiced by the certifying doctor

It noted that Siddha practitioners often do not issue formal certificates, which may lead patients to seek certification from Allopathy doctors

The Court found that a "conjoint reading" of the affidavit and the medical certificate *prima facie* established the respondent's inability to attend court due to viral fever

Therefore, the Trial Court’s decision to prioritize a merit-based resolution over technical defaults was a proper exercise of judicial discretion

The Court affirmed that the Respondent provided a sufficient explanation for the 470-day delay, and the interest of justice required the suit to be decided on its merits

The order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, condoning the delay subject to costs, was sustained

No further costs were ordered for the revision