Judgment M. Venugopal, J. 1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/3rd defendant has projected this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 010. 2007 in I. A. No. 509of 2006 in O.S. No. 161 of 1994 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff Ariyalur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 390 days in setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 110. 2000. 2. The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 has opined that “the benefits of the ex parte decree have been enjoyed by the respondent/plaintiff and in pursuance of the same delivery has been effected in Execution proceedings No. 73 of 2001 on 17.01.2002 and the same has been terminated on 22.01.2002 and therefore, under this circumstance, the reason assigned by the petitioner for condo nation of delay is unacceptable and ultimately dismissed the application without costs. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/3rd defendant, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A. No. 509 of 2006 without considering the reasons ascribed by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 and because of the old age and prolonged illness of the revision petitioner, the delay of 398 days has occurred and these aspects of the matter have not been taken note of by the. Trial Court in a real perspective and moreover the revision petitioner is an agriculturist and there is no evidence of culpable negligence or laches on his part and hence the delay is to be condoned due to health grounds andf the same is neither fulfill nor wanton and if there are bona fide reason,, then a liberal view has to be taken and the order of dismissal passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No.509 of 2006 has caused irreparable loss injustice to the revision petitioner and also that the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction not in a proper manner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner substantially and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition to prevent an aberration of justice. 4. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submits that the trial Court has not accepted the reason ascribed by the revision petitioner in regard to the 398 days delay and in the present case, an ex parte decree has been passed on 110. 2000 and also an Execution proceeding No.73 of 2001 has been initiated by the respondent/decree holder in which the delivery has been effected as early as on 17.01.2002 and later the execution proceedings have come to an end and therefore at this distance of time, this Court way not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the application. 5. The Court has paid its anxious consideration to the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their contentions. It is to be noted that in the main suit O.S. No.161 of 1994 on the file of Trial Court, an ex parte decree has been passed on 110. 2000. Equally, it is not in dispute that the delivery has been effected on dispute that the delivery has been effected on 17.01.2002 in E.P. No.73 of 2001 and consequently the execution petition has been terminated. 6. The main reason furnished by the revision petitioner in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 is that due to his illness, he has not been able to appear on 110. 2000 and that his previous counsel has reported no instructions and therefore, the Court has passed an ex parte decree against him on 110. 2000 and only. After recovery from the illness he has met his previous counsel and learnt about the fact and that he has engaged the present counsel for conducting his case and as such there has been a delay of 398 days in presenting the application to set aside the ex parte decree. 7. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in his counter (filed through power agent) has averred among other things that there is deliberate act of causing delay and there is no bona fide on the part of the revision petitioner and that the suit has been pending from the year 1994 for a decision and that the defendants have not evinced interest to conduct the trial and they have suffered an ex parte decree on 110. 2000 and even in E.P. No. 73 of 2001, they have not appeared etc. 2000 and even in E.P. No. 73 of 2001, they have not appeared etc. and if the delay is excused, then it will cause hardship and loss to the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff. 8. In support of the contention that the delay cannot be condoned, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder cities the decision of this Court in Rathinatharnmal v. Muthusamy and Others, (2004) 3 MLJ 36 wherein it is held as follows: “Though the petitioner was imp leaded at a later stage, she was aware of the suit and the suit was allowed to be decreed ex parte and only at the time of delivery of property, the petitioner has chosen to file application for condo nation of delay and that the petitioner was aware of execution proceedings and that the delay cannot be condoned.” 9. He also relies on the decision of this Court in Kaliammal and others v. sundharam and Another (2007) 1 MLJ 577 wherein it is held as follows at p. 582 of MLJ: “16. Only at the execution stage, the revision petitioners seek to challenge the preliminary decree. Sufficiency of cause is a condition precedent to exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for condoning the delay. The range of delay is no matter. But acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Where there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party, deliberately to gain time, then the Court should not show indulgence in accepting the explanation. 17…… Even at the stage of final decree, the revision petitioners did not appear. Only when notice was served upon them in the execution proceedings, they have chosen to take further steps, which is suggestive of gross negligence on the part of the defendant. 18…… The short range of delay of 32 days’ stand in isolation; but coupled with inaction for a long time…… 19…… Final decree has been passed and in delivery of possession was also ordered on 05.07.2002. If I.A. No. 11 of 1995 is to be allowed at this stage, it would unsettle the various proceedings of this Court. Interest of justice and enquiry requires that there must be an end to the litigation. Or otherwise, the right accrued to the opposite party would be unsettled by the uncertainties of the litigation. 21. This Court cannot lose sight of the right accrued to the opposite party. 22. Interest of justice and enquiry requires that there must be an end to the litigation. Or otherwise, the right accrued to the opposite party would be unsettled by the uncertainties of the litigation. 21. This Court cannot lose sight of the right accrued to the opposite party. 22. After several years the proceedings cannot be reopened much to the prejudice of the respondents.” 10. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/3rd defendant contends that in regard to Section 5 condo nation of delay application. Court will have to adopt a liberal approach in a common sense pragmatic manner and also that the length of delay is immaterial, this Court is of the considered view that the term ‘sufficient cause’ normally must be interpreted in a purposeful and useful manner liberally and a Court of law ought not to adopt a pedantic approach. 11. It is not in dispute that if an application for condo nation of delay is allowed, the maximum that can happen is that a party is allowed to get into the main arena of the proceedings and that a cause will be decided on merits, of course opportunities being provided to the parties in the manner known to law. But, one cannot loose sight of an important fact that in the instant case, an ex parte decree has been passed as early on 110. 2000 and also that a delivery has been effected on 17.01.2002 in E.P. NO. 73 of 2001 culminating in termination of execution proceedings and more so, the application to condone the delay has been filed mainly attributing to the reasons of illness and that the previous counsel of the petitioner has reported no instruction etc. and in short except the reason that the petitioner has not been able to appear on the date of hearing on 110. 2000, there is no satisfactory acceptable explanation put forward by the revision petitioner and in this regard, the discretion exercised by the trial Court in dismissing the Section 5 application on going through the order of the trial Court is a correct one and the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court sitting in revision and after a long delay, a settled matter cannot be reopened to upset the apple cart and viewed from any angle the civil revision petition sans merits and the same is dismissed. The order dated 010. 2007 in I.A. No. 509 of 2006 passed by the trial Court is confirmed for the reason assigned by this Court in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs.