Judgment :- The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed these revision petitions as against the common order dated 24.09.2007 made in I.A.Nos.625 of 2005 and 586 of 2006 in O.S.No.244 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, allowing I.A.No.625/2005 filed for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit on 110. 1998 and I.A.No.586 of 2006 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2412 days in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 110. 1998. 2. The trial Court has allowed the aforesaid interlocutory applications directing the respondents/legal representatives of the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.500/-in each application as compensatory amount to be paid within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contends that the common order passed by the trial Court in both the interlocutory applications is not maintainable in law taking note of the fact that the deceased defendant has not taken any steps during his left time to set aside the ex parte decree and therefore, his legal representatives cannot have any right better than what has been exercised by him and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petitions in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that E.P.No.10 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is pending before the trial Court. 5. It is to be pointed out that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be applied by a Court of law in a meaningful fashion which aims at deliverance of substantial justice. A liberal approach is normally required when a Court of law deals with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay. Generally speaking, a party does not stand to benefit by preferring an application in regard to condonation of delay or in regard to filing of an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. Refusing to condone the delay may result in a good matter being thrown out at the early stage and cause of justice being defeated. Per contra, if the application is allowed, the maximum that can happen is that a cause will be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Refusing to condone the delay may result in a good matter being thrown out at the early stage and cause of justice being defeated. Per contra, if the application is allowed, the maximum that can happen is that a cause will be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In short, when substantial justice and technical suggestions are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. If a party resorts to delay, then he is at serious risk. But, the Court is to find out whether that delay is deliberate or a non-deliberate one. 6. In the case on hand, the trial Court has allowed interlocutory applications by ordering the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.500/-towards costs in each of the petitions within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order. In the dispensation of the justice under the justice delivery system, the processual law must be employed in order to secure the ends of justice and the same cannot be pressed into service as being an irritant in the administration of justice. Suffice it for this Court to point out that judiciary is respected not on account of its discretionary power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because its capable of removing injustice and it is expected to do so. On going through the order passed by the Court below in both the interlocutory applications, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper way and has passed the conditional order and therefore, the same need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision. 7. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.