IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. Review Application No.176 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Habibur Rahman ... Petitioner Vs V. Elumalai ... Respondent The Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and section 114 of CPC praying to review the Order dated 24.11.2010 made in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3722 of 2010. For Petitioner : M/s.N.Mala For Respondent : Mr.N.Suresh Review Application No.176 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. Heard Mrs.N.Mala, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the Revision filed by the applicant/petitioner, seeking setting aside the order passed by the lower Court in dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, was dismissed by this Court in its order dated 24.11.2010 in CRP.(NPD).No.3722 of 2010. She would further submit that while passing the order, this Court had taken into account of not filing of the written statement by the defendant/petitioner before the lower Court and had decided that the refusal of condonation of delay by the lower Court was correct. However, the petitioner/defendant has already filed written statement, to which the respondent/plaintiff has also admitted the same. She would further submit that when the applicant had filed written statement and he has got a valid defence in the suit, that may be considered for reviewing the order passed by this Court in dismissing the Civil Revision Petition and if the said point is considered by this Court, the Revision would have been allowed and the condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the lower Court would have been ordered. She would also draw the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court passed in 2002 (2) MLJ 85 (SC) (Ram Nath Sao ..vs.. Gobardhan Sao) for the proposition of the meaning of 'sufficient cause' and the acceptance of explanation by the parties is the rule and the refusal is an exception. She would also produce a judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (5) CTC 414 (Pavayammal and another ..vs.. S.N.Chockalingam and others) for the proposition that the sufficient cause to be interpreted in a purposeful and meaningful way. Yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (1) MLJ 1090 (G.Krishnamoorthy ..vs.. Arulmighu Sri Pataleeswarar Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore) was also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the proposition that innocent party cannot suffer injustice because of the default of his counsel. Therefore, she would request the Court that the applicant/petitioner/ defendant who has already filed the written statement stating her defence may be given an opportunity to participate in the suit and therefore, the order passed by this Court in CRP.NPD.No.3722 of 2010 on 24.11.2010 may be reviewed and thus Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that review filed by the petitioner is not at all sustainable, because this Court has come to a conclusion solely on the basis of the laches of the petitioner in not taking steps to set aside the exparte decree from 03.06.2008, when he received the E.P. notice. Apart from that, the petitioner did not explain the delay from 03.06.2008 till 30.04.2009, when the application was filed to condone the delay before the lower Court. He would further submit that when such laches was find on the part of the petitioner by this Court, the filing of the written statement would not have helped the petitioner to come to any conclusion that he has got a fair chance in succeeding the suit. He would further submit that the settled principle of law was violated by this Court as reported in 2009 (1) CTC 48 (Shanmugam ..vs.. Chokkalingam) quoting the various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the condonation of delay. The judgments of this Court as well as the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the applicant/petitioner would not apply to the applicant's/petitioner's case, since he was found to be a defaulter on laches. Therefore, he would submit that the application for review deserves no merit and accordingly be dismissed. 4. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 5. Considering the submissions made by both parties, I could see that there is no dispute in respect of the proposition laid down by this Court as reported in 2009 (5) CTC 414 (Pavayammal and another ..vs.. S.N.Chockalingam and others) regarding the meaning of sufficient cause and reported in 2010 (1) MLJ 1090 (G.Krishnamoorthy ..vs.. Arulmighu Sri Pataleeswarar Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore) that innocent party cannot suffer injustice because of the default of the counsel. Similarly there is no second opinion against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of understanding the meaning of sufficient cause and accepting the explanation is the rule and the refusal is the exception as reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 85 (SC) (Ram Nath Sao ..vs.. Gobardhan Sao). Whether the applicant would be benefited by those judgments is the question. The only point raised by the petitioner was that this Court was the mistaken impression that there was no written statement filed by the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be considered that he has got meritorious case. As far as the filing of written statement is concerned, no doubt it has been admitted by the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement. Therefore the observation made by this Court that no written statement has been filed so far to establish his contentions cannot be correct. Whether the said observation would entitle the petitioner to seek the order of this Court passed on 24.11.2010 be upset by reviewing is to be decided. Admittedly, the E.P notice was served on 03.06.2008 on the petitioner, based on the exparte decree passed against him. If really the petitioner is interested in pursuing his contentions raised in the written statement, he would have applied to set aside the exparte decree along with the condonation of delay, if occurred so. But the petitioner has selected to file the application to condone the delay only on 30.04.2009, after a period of 10 months. Considering the said long delay and lapse on the part of the petitioner, this Court had followed the judgment of this Court made in 2009 (1) CTC 48 (Shanmugam ..vs.. Chokkalingam) and had disallowed the claim to set aside the order passed by the lower Court in dismissing the application to condone the delay. Therefore, the observation of this Court regarding the filing of the written statement was a mistaken observation that would not upset the decision reached by this Court in the review. The petitioner cannot be attracted under any of the judgments cited in the review application by him. Therefore, the review application seeking setting aside the order passed by this Court in the Revision in CRP.(NPD)No.3722 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010 is liable to be dismissed. However the typographical error caused in paragraph No.8 at the last, but one sentence, the word 'allow' shall be corrected as 'disallow'. 6. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. The office is directed to carry out the said amendment in the said Civil Revision Petition. The order passed in this Review Application shall be kept along with the orders passed by this Court in CRP.(NPD).No.3722 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010. Mra 29.09.2011 Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Note to Registry: Issue fresh order copy to the parties, after carrying out the amendment as above. V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. Mra Review Application No.176 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 29.09.2011