THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3378 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18.07.2011 in I.A.No. 558 of 2010 in O.S.No. 94 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 1730 days in filing the petition to restore the suit, was dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.07.1992, After service of summons, the petitioner-defendant approached the respondent-plaintiff for settlement and the respondent agreed to withdraw the suit and asked him not to attend the Court, but however, the Court below passed the ex parte decree in favour of the respondent on 30.04.2005 with a direction to execute a regular registered sale deed within a period of two months from the date of the decree. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P.No. 56 of 2009 for execution of the regular registered sale deed, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Then the Court executed a regular registered sale deed and issued sale deed to the respondent. The petitioner came to know about the execution of the registered sale deed on the date of service of notice in E.P.No.118 of 2009 filed by the respondent for delivery of possession of E.P. schedule property. Therefore, he filed the present I.A. The Court below dismissed the said I.A. vide the order impugned. Challenging the same, the present Revision is preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the respondent promised that he would not pursue the suit, the petitioner did not attend the Court, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the abnormal delay has not been explained properly by the petitioner, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been defined, but it must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking aid of the said provision. There was delay of 1730 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The only ground taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application was that, after receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner approached the respondent, who assured that he would not pursue the suit further and therefore, the petitioner did not attend the Court. The respondent stated that after the suit was decreed, a notice was given to the petitioner to execute the regular sale deed and as he failed to execute the same, in pursuance of the decree, the respondent filed execution proceedings. After receipt of summons in that proceedings also, the petitioner did not file any petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation, the abnormal delay of 1730 days cannot be condoned. Of course, the petitioner need not explain each day’s delay, but at the same time, he must show a reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay. No explanation, worth its name, is forthcoming in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition. No doubt, Section 5 of the Act has to be construed liberally, but at the same time, when negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to the party, the delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, as seen from the impugned order, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion as the petitioner failed to establish the sufficient cause for condoning the abnormal delay in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., within the period of limitation. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C. BHANU, J) 14th November 2011 ksld