Judgment :- The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2250 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in I.A.No.23 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 218 days in filing an application to restore the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 to file. 2. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2251 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in dismissing the I.A.No.25 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the application to bring the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder on record. 3. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants 1, 3 to 9 have filed C.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code to restore the appeal which has been dismissed for default on 05.07.2007. 4. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants have filed C.R.P.No.2253 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the abatement of the appeal. 5. The revision petitioners/petitioners/appellants have filed C.R.P.No.2254 of 2009 as against the order dated 19.03.2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners to bring on record the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder for final adjudication of the appeal. 6. Aggrieved against the orders so passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.As. of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur, the revision petitioners have projected these revision petitions before this Court. 7. 6. Aggrieved against the orders so passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.As. of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur, the revision petitioners have projected these revision petitions before this Court. 7. The revision petitioners in I.A.No.23 of 2008 has inter alia averred that as against the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur dated 13.04.1998 passed in O.S.No.801 of 1982, they have preferred the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 along with Bala Xavier (since dead) and that the sole deceased respondent Alphonsa filed E.P.No.50 of 2001 before the Executing Court for delivery and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent Alphonsa expired and that this has been informed to the petitioners counsel about the factum of death of the respondent and therefore, the Court has been pleased to order steps to be taken for the deceased respondent and on 25.03.2008 the Amin of the lower Court has come to the suit property stating that the warrant has been entrusted to him to effect delivery of the suit property but he went away stating that he will take the assistance of the police while effecting delivery and they rushed to Tiruvallur to met their counsel and only thereafter, they have come to know that steps to bring the proposed parties as legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been taken and resultantly, the appeal has been dismissed on 05.07.2007 and they have no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 and that they have changed a counsel and filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the executability of the decree passed by the trial Court and since they have no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal on 05.07.2007. But by way of abandon caution they have been advised to file the present I.A.No.23 of 2008 and in that process, there has occasioned a delay of 218 days in filing the application to restore the appeal to file and as such, the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and the same may be condoned since the petitioners have a good case on merits. 8. In the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 before the trial Court, it is mentioned inter alia that on 212. 8. In the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 before the trial Court, it is mentioned inter alia that on 212. 2006 itself a memo has been filed in the present appeal informing the date of death of the respondent/decree holder on 20.12.2006 and thereafter, the case has been periodically adjourned from 06.02.2007 to 05.07.2007 several times for taking steps and the matter has been posted as last chance on 05.07.2007 and for not taking steps owing to the death of the decree holder/plaintiff, the present appeal has been dismissed and respondents 2 and 3 have been impleaded as legal representatives of the plaintiff/decree holder in E.P.No.50 of 2001 filed in O.S.No.801 of 1982 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur and when the Amin went to deliver suit item, the petitioners prevented him from doing so and the Amin reported to the Court that without police aid the suit item cannot be delivered in accordance with the decree and therefore, the present interlocutory application has been filed and that the revision petitioners are Court birds who knew the implications of legal proceedings and they have watching Court proceedings regularly and projecting vexatious applications only to prolong their unlawful possession of the suit item and the petitioners have to prove each and every days delay which is just and valid reasons and in short, the reasons assigned for condoning the delay in restoring the appeal or in condonding the delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code are neither true nor sustainable and therefore, prays for dismissal of the application. 9. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order of the learned Sub Judge, Tiruvallur in dismissing the appeal "for not taking steps" is contrary to law, the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and in fact, the petitioners/appellants do have a substantial case on merits and that the appeal has to be heard on merits and therefore, should have restored the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 to file by condoning the delay and furthermore, the appeal has been dismissed for not taking appropriate steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent/plaintiff and indeed, the decree holder/ respondent expired on 20.12.2006 pending A.S.No.19 of 2003 and E.P.No.50 of 2001 have been filed by the deceased decree holder and as a matter of fact, E.A.No.194 of 2007 has been filed to bring on record the legal representative only on 211. 2007 and that the appeal has been dismissed for default on 05.07.2007 and in short, the orders in I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.A.Nos. Of 2008 suffers from material irregularity and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petitions in the interest of justice. 10. In the affidavit in I.A.No.25 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioners, it is, among other things, mentioned that on 25.03.2008 Amin deputed by the lower Court has come to the suit property stating that a warrant has been entrusted to him to effect delivery of the suit property. But he went away stating that he will take the assistance of police while effecting delivery etc. and that the respondent /decree holder expired on 20.12.2006 and the present application is projected to bring the proposed parties on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/ decree holder since they have already been brought on record in the lower Court and that the proposed parties may be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder for complete adjudication of the matter and in that process, there has occasioned a delay of 294 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of the respondent/decree holder on record. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all these revision petitions is that the First Appellate Authority ought to have taken a liberal view while dealing with the interlocutory applications [I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.A.Nos. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all these revision petitions is that the First Appellate Authority ought to have taken a liberal view while dealing with the interlocutory applications [I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2008 and three unnumbered I.A.Nos. Of 2008] which are now impugned in the revision petitions before this Court and as a matter of fact, if the delay is heard on merits then the revision petitioners/ appellants will have an opportunity to put forward their case and their cause can be decided on merits and therefore, this Court, by taking a pragmatic view, should allow these revision petitions in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 12. However, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contends that since the revision petitioners are guilty of laches and negligence and since they have not assigned sufficient cause in their affidavit in regard to the delay of dismissal of the applications by the First Appellate Authority need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision. 13. To lend support to the contention that delay cannot be condoned if sufficient cause is not made out by the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents cites the decision of this Court in Shanmugam V. Chokkalingam 2009 (5) CTC 48 at page 49 wherein it is among other things mentioned as follows: "... Even if the Court wants to construe the reason assigned by the petitioner liberally in order to give him an opportunity to contest the Suit, the laches on the part of the petitioner in not taking steps to file the petition to set aside the ex parte decree immediately on knowing the passing of ex parte decree against him would render no assistance from the Court. Even though the delay caused in filing the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree was 332 days, it was not explained by the petitioner with sufficient cause to condone the delay as contemplated in the judgment of our Honourable Apex Court. The petitioner is seriously lacking to apply the provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act, as the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the lower Court was also vague and bereft of particulars without any explanation for period commencing from the date of passing of the ex parte decree i.e., on 16. The petitioner is seriously lacking to apply the provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act, as the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the lower Court was also vague and bereft of particulars without any explanation for period commencing from the date of passing of the ex parte decree i.e., on 16. 2006 till the date of filing of the Petition i.e., on 6. 2007. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could see that the lower Court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court." 14. He also seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in G. Jayaraman V. Devarajan 2007 (2) CTC 643 wherein it is held that petitioners cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against technical considerations. He brings it to the notice of this Court the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Katari Suryanarayana and Others V. Koppisetti Subba Rao and Others 2009 (4) CTC 286 at page 287 wherein it is held thus: "It may be true that a distinction exists where an Application for setting aside of the abatement is filed in a Suit and the one which is required to be filed in a Second Appeal before the High Court but the same, in our opinion, by itself may not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the parties were not aware of the consequences thereof. Appellants themselves rely on the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was inserted by reason of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. It does not, however, provide for consequences. It does not take away the duty on the part of the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, to file an Application for condonation of delay in bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff/appellant or defendant/respondent within the period prescribed. It is not in dispute that the appellants were neighbours. They were co-sharers. The respective dates of death of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, thus, were known to them. It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners were not in touch with their learned Advocates from 1999 to December 2006. It is not in dispute that the appellants were neighbours. They were co-sharers. The respective dates of death of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, thus, were known to them. It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners were not in touch with their learned Advocates from 1999 to December 2006. If not every week, they are expected to contact their lawyers once in a year. Ignorance of legal consequence without something more would, in our opinion, be not sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Appellants are literates. They have been fighting their cases for a long time. The High Court in its impugned judgment has categorically arrived at a finding that no sufficient cause has been shown for the purpose of condonation of delay in bringing on record the names of the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased Respondent Nos.2 and 3." 15. At this stage, this Court recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh V. Kishan Singh (D) through LRs and Others (2007) 3 MLJ 839 at page 840 wherein it is held that merely because the appeal has been dismissed on merits, that could not have been a ground to refuse restoration of the appeal. In the decision in Laxman V. Smt. Ratna Bai (deceased by LRs) and Others 2001 A I H C 2569 wherein it is held that application for restoration of dismissal of appeal for default cannot be dismissed only on the ground that it was filed under wrong provision. In the decision in Smt. Dakshayani and Others V. Smt. Kamala and Others 2000 A I H C 3255 wherein it is held that the trial Court has exercised its discretion and condoned the delay taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the same has not been interfered with. Also this Court recollects the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Nav Maharashtra Containers (P) Limited and Another V. Shah Nagindas Manchharas & Sons and Others (2005) 11 SCC 499 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has upheld the imposition of condition for restoration of appeal which has been dismissed for default but has reduced the sum to be deposited to Rs.35 lakhs, without any interest. 16. 16. It is an axiomatic fact that when a Court of Law deals with a matter pertaining to Order 41 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code relating to readmission of appeal dismissed for default must take into account of the special facts of each case must determine the same upon its own circumstances and there can be no hard and fast rule in determining a simple question of fact as this, in the considered opinion of this Court. It is to be noted that where sufficient cause is established, the Court has no discretion but to readmit the appeal which has been dismissed for default. Moreover, Order 41 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code is not a penal one. One cannot ignore a vital fact that the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code are similar in nature and effect to the ingredients of Order 9 of Civil Procedure Code. Only in a case of palpable negligence and misconduct a person ought to be deprived of the opportunity of having a satisfactory disposal of the case. 17. Apart from the above, it is relevant to state that the term "Date of Dismissal" of appeal under Article 168 of the Limitation Act is to be construed in its plain meaning as "Date of actual Dismissal" and not as "Date of knowledge of Dismissal" and if an application is filed as 30 days period of limitation, then the delay will have to be explained to satisfy the judicial conscience of a particular Court. In AIR 1950 Madras at page 573 it is observed that if there were valid excuses for the petitioners absence on that date when the appeal has been dismissed for default, the previous negligence or want of diligence on the part of the appellant to prosecute the appeal should not be made a ground disentitling him for restoration. 18. The question of "sufficient cause" demands a generous common sense pragmatic approach in the considered opinion of this Court. Refusing to readmit the appeal which has been dismissed for default or otherwise can result in a meritorious matter been thrown out at the very nascent stage and cause of justice being defeated. 18. The question of "sufficient cause" demands a generous common sense pragmatic approach in the considered opinion of this Court. Refusing to readmit the appeal which has been dismissed for default or otherwise can result in a meritorious matter been thrown out at the very nascent stage and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when the appeal is readmitted which has been dismissed for default or when the delay is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is condoned, the maximum thing that can happen is that a cause will be decided on merits, after hearing the parties. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Added further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, 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. 19. As far as the present case is concerned, that in the main suit O.S.No.801 of 1982 a judgment and decree have been passed on 13.04.1998. As against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.801 of 1982, A.S.No.19 of 2003 has been preferred and the same has been dismissed for default on 05.07.2007 for not taking steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder and when E.P.No.50 of 2001 delivery has been ordered and that too when Court Amin has gone to the spot for effecting delivery at that time the petitioners have obstructed and only with a delay of 218 and 294 days, the petitioners have projected (i) I.A.No.23 of 2008 praying to condone the delay of 218 days in filing the application to restore the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 to file and (ii) I.A.No.25 of 2008 praying to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the application to bring the proposed parties as legal heirs of the deceased respondent/decree holder on record, seeking the indulgence of the trial Court to condone the same. But the trial Court has dismissed the applications in I.A.No.23 of 2008 and I.A.No.25 of 2008 inter alia stating that they have not been filed based on bona fide intentions. 20. But the trial Court has dismissed the applications in I.A.No.23 of 2008 and I.A.No.25 of 2008 inter alia stating that they have not been filed based on bona fide intentions. 20. Suffice it for this Court to point out that on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface the revision petitioners have not been quite diligent enough in prosecuting the appeal proceedings and also that they have not taken timely steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent/decree holder on record etc. in the considered opinion of this Court. 21. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and bearing in mind of the fact that substantial justice will have to be delivered to the parties overriding technicalities and also by extending the term sufficient cause in an elastic manner to apply the law in a meaningful manner and to subserve the ends of justice, this Court, by taking a lenient and justice oriented view in a common sense pragmatic manner, allows these civil revision petitions subject to the condition that the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.800/-in each of the interlocutory applications/civil revision petitions (aggregating in all a sum of Rs.4000/-) as cost to the learned counsel for the respondents directly within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which these revision petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference. 22. With the aforesaid directions, these Civil Revision petitions are allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the orders passed in I.A.No.23 of 2008, I.A.No.25 of 2009 and three unnumbered I.A.Nos. Of 2008 are set aside to prevent an aberration of justice. Further, the trial Court is directed to proceed further in regard to the completion of formalities in the appeal A.S.No.19 of 2003 in the manner known to law and to dispose of the same in any event within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the parties are directed to lend a helping hand in regard to the final disposal of the appeal and to report compliance to this Court without fail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.