ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2001, made in I.A.No.10 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, refusing to condone a total inordinate delay of 705 days in representing an application to set aside the ex parte order in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996, dated 28.8.1997 on the ground that the counsel had misplaced the bundle, claiming it as a genuine professional preoccupation in the office of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition 2. No doubt, an ex parte eviction order was passed on 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, against the petitioner- tenant, evicting him, from the premises at door No.137, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and for personal occupation. 3. Even though the petitioner- tenant filed I.A.No.14 of 1997 before the learned Rent Controller to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996, with a delay of 30 days, viz., 27.9.1997 to 27.10.1997, the same was returned for certain compliance, granting time till 4.12.1997, but the papers were represented only on 25.2.1998, with a delay of 83 days, viz., from 5.12.1997 to 27.2.1998. Thereafter the papers were again returned on 3.3.1998 for compliance on giving two weeks time to represent the same, viz., till 17.3.1998. In the meanwhile, the respondent landlord filed E.P.No.37 of 1999 to execute the order dated 28.8.1997 made in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996. Only on receipt of notice in the said E.P., the petitioner- tenant represented the papers, after a delay of 595 days viz., from 17.3.1998 till 1.11.1999. Even though the papers were again returned on 18.11.1999 giving time till 10.12.1999, the same were represented only on 5.1.2000, with a delay of 27 days. 4. Hence, the petitioner- tenant has preferred I.A.No.13 of 2000 to condone the delay of 30 days in filing I.A.No.14 of 1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996, I.A.No.10 of 2000 to condone the delay of 83 days in representation viz., from 5.12.1997 to 25.2.1998. I.A.No.11 of 2000 to condone the delay of 595 days in representation viz., from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999 and I.A.No.12 of 2000 to condone the delay of 27 days in representation viz., from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000. 5. I.A.No.11 of 2000 to condone the delay of 595 days in representation viz., from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999 and I.A.No.12 of 2000 to condone the delay of 27 days in representation viz., from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000. 5. In the above applications, only reason stated by the petitioner- tenant to condone the said delay is that hand bundles with returned applications were misplaced and lost. 6. The reason for the said delay was denied by the respondent landlord in the respective counter, by stating that the said reason had no sufficient cause to condone the delay and it was made deliberately to protract the proceedings in executing the order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996. 7. The learned Rent Controller by orders even dated 23.1.2001 dismissed I.A.Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2000, against which the petitioner has preferred R.C.A. Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 2001 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, by common order dated 12.10.2001 dismissed the same, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 23.1.2001 in I.A.Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2000. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this revision. 8. In the above revision, we are not concerned with merits and demerits of the above order of eviction dated 28.8.1997, but concerned only whether the revision petitioner- tenant had offered sufficient cause and bona fide reason for condoning the delay, viz., 30 days from 27.9.1997 to 27.10.1997, 83 days from 5.12.1997 to 25.2.1998, 595 days from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999 and 27 days from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000. 9. 9. The learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, by his order dated 23.1.2001, observing that the reason offered by the petitioner to condone the delay of 30 days in filing I.A.No.14 of 2000, to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996 as well as to condone the delay of 83 days, viz., from 5.12.1997 to 25.2.1998, 595 days from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999, 27 days from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000 viz., that hand bundle with returned papers were misplaced and lost in the office of the counsel for the petitioner, claiming genuine professional preoccupation by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not a bona fide and sufficient cause to condone the said delay and that neither the counsel nor his clerk had chosen to let in evidence to justify the above reason, refused to condone the said inordinate delay in filing as well as representing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996 and the same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by orders even dated 12.10.2001 in R.C.A. Nos.12 to 16 of 2001 10. Ms.G.Thilakavathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision in Fast Cool Services v. Shanthakumari, (2000)1 M.L.J. 506 , contends that an application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act will have to be interpreted liberally in favour of the litigant and merely because the litigant came to a little late, doors of the Court shall not be closed, unless the Court is of the view that the application itself is without bona fide or to prolong the litigation. 11. It is true, in considering the application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should exercise the discretionary power conferred under Sec.5 of the Act liberally. But even while liberally exercising the discretion, the Court is burdened with the obligation to test the bona fides of the reason placed by the litigant, which should not unnecessarily cause relative hardship on the respondent also. 12. In the instant case, undisputedly, the papers in I.A.No.14 of 1997 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1997 were presented with a delay of 30 days and were returned on three occasions and on every occasion there was a delay in representation viz., 83 days, 595 days and 27 days. 12. In the instant case, undisputedly, the papers in I.A.No.14 of 1997 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1997 were presented with a delay of 30 days and were returned on three occasions and on every occasion there was a delay in representation viz., 83 days, 595 days and 27 days. The only reason offered by the petitioner- tenant to condone the delay is that the hand bundles with returned papers were misplaced and lost, in the office of the learned counsel, claiming genuine professional preoccupation. Such a reason,may be considered if the delay had occurred continuously due to the misplacing of the paper. But the papers would not have been misplaced and lost on every successive returns, which would only reflect the lack of bona fide and negligence on the part of the petitioner- tenant as well as his counsel. 13. That apart, neither the counsel nor his clerk had chosen to get into the box and justify the reason, as observed by the learned Rent Controller, in his order dated 23.1.2001. 14. In this connection, both the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly relied upon the ratios, viz. (i) that carelessness of the pleader’s clerk is not sufficient cause" as held by Scott-Smith, J. in Shahadal and others v. Hukam Singh, A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 401; (ii) that vague reason to condone the delay cannot be believed unless the party gets into the box and speaks about the same, as held by Srinivasan, J., in Sri Pillaiyarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Nagathar Trust represented by its Nadappu Kariyasthargal v. RM. Sevagan Chettiar, (1996)1 M.L.J. 368 : (1996)1 L.W. 432 ; (iii) that discretion to excuse delay on sufficient cause must be based on some materials or otherwise it is perverse, as held by S.S. Subramani, J., in Jayaverchand v. Balan, (1998)1 M.L.J. 701 : (1998)1 L.W. 486 ; and (iv) that the Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was deligence on the part of the appellant and was not guilty of any negligence whatsoever, as held by a Division Bench of this Court (C.Shivappa and K.Natarajan, JJ., in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Mrs.Sakuntala Ganapathy Rao, (1998)1 M.L.J. (Supp.) 96: (1998)3 L.W. 780 . 15. 15. Even as per the decision in Fast Cool Services case, (2000)1 M.L.J. 506 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court should be liberal in exercising Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, unless the application itself is without bona fide or to prolong the litigation. But, in the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects that he is not only negligent but also deliberately protracting the execution proceedings as he has failed to get into the box and prove his case. 16. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority, are right in holding that the reasons offered by the petitioner- tenant for condoning the delay in filing and representing the papers in I.A.No.14 of 1997, are not bona fide. 17. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the respondent- caveator, has brought to my notice that the delivery was ordered on 5.11.2001, pursuant to which the respondent is said to have taken possession on 7.11.2001 and started to demolish the building. 18. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on 7.11.2001, the petitioner- tenant moved I.A.No.171 of 2001 and obtained an order to stay all further proceedings in [QE.P.No.36 of 1997 at 3 p.m. on 7.11.2001, I am of the considered opinion that it would not vitiate the possession taken by the respondent- landlord prior to passing of the order of stay at 3 p.m. on 7.11.2001 and consequently, the order of stay granted at 3 p.m. on 7.11.2001 would only become infructuous. 19. Hence, holding that the petitioner only attempts to protract the litigation, as rightly observed by the learned Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority and that the petitioner had not offered bona fide and sufficient cause to condone the delay in representing the papers in I.A.No.14 of 1997, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.18998 of 2001 is also dismissed.