Judgment :- This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.11.2005 made in I.A. No. 295 of 2005 in O.S. No. 167 of 1997 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore. 2. The defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 167 of 1997 for the relief of spe­cific performance based on the agreement said to have been executed on 29.9.1994 in respect of the Schedule property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 20.12.2002. E.P. No. 56 of 2005 was filed by the respondent to ex parte decree along with an application in I.A. No. 295 of 2005 to condone the delay of 488 days' in fil­ing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. No. 295 of 2005 on 16.11.2005, and challenging the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submis­sions. 4. The reasons given by the petitioner herein in that he is an old person of 67 years' of age and he was suffering from chronic bron­chitis for more than 3 years' and therefore, he could not give necessary instructions to his counsel. After service of notice In E.P., it is stated by the revision petitioner that he had to engage another counsel as the previous coun­sel did not want to appear. He has also filed the Medical Certificate dated 6.6.2005 to prove his illness. 5. The trial Judge, though observed that the delay could be condoned by imposing cost, chose to dismiss the same on the ground that the petitioner did not take immediate steps even after coming to know that the execution petition was already filed to execute the de­cree. 6. It is settled law that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. The crite­rion for allowing a condonation of delay peti­tion is the acceptability of the reasons given by the defaulting party. The primary function of the Court is to do substantial justice by adjudicating the dispute between the parties. 6. It is settled law that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. The crite­rion for allowing a condonation of delay peti­tion is the acceptability of the reasons given by the defaulting party. The primary function of the Court is to do substantial justice by adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Law of limitation is not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, but is meant to see that the litigants do not resort to dilatory tactics to prolong the proceedings. That is why the words "suffi­cient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal consideration. 7. In every case of delay petition, there can be some lapse or default on the part of the litigant and that alone is not sufficient to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides, then the Court should give utmost consideration. At the same time, the Court should not forget that the opposite party is to be adequately compensated for his loss. 8. What is "sufficient cause" will depend upon the facts of each and every case and ac­ceptance of the reasons given is the rule and the refusal of the same is an exception. The Courts should not adopt a hyper-technical view in its own over-jubiliation of disposing of a case. 9. In the light of the above well settled prin­ciples, let me see whether the delay petition deserves to be ordered or not. The petitioner pleaded illness and produced a Medical Certificate to that effect. But the trial Judge observed that the doctor who issued the certificate was not examined and the Medical Certificates are easily procurable. This, in my opinion is not correct and the trial Court proceeded in this matter with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown by the petitioner. Still the trial Court felt that the delay could be condoned by imposing cost, but did not condone the delay as the petitioner did not file the petition imme­diately after he came to know about the execu­tion proceedings. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 488 days' in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 488 days' in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. At the same time, I am aware of the fact that the respondent herein suffered considerable loss as already the execution pe­tition has been filed for executing the decree. 11. In the interest of justice, I direct the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards cost to the respondent within 45 days' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment being made within the time specified, the delay will be condoned. Failing to pay the above said amount within the time stipulated above, the order of this Court in con­doning the delay stands recalled automatically without further reference to this Court. In such an event, the respondent herein is within his liberty to proceed with the execution proceed­ings. 12. With the above direction, the civil revi­sion petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed. Petition allowed.