Judgment 1. The respondent in the above C.R.P.No.2907 of 2009 has filed O.S.No.293 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, against the petitioner herein seeking a decree for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale, dated 11. 2000 said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. 2. The suit was dismissed for default on 112. 2005. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.522 of 2006 to set aside the order, dated 112. 2005 and restore the suit to file. 3. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein. 4. Ona consideration of rival contentions, the trial court dismissed the petition. 5. Being aggrieved by that the respondent herein filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2007 before the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and being aggrieved by that the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Heard both. 7. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2907 of 2009 submitted that the lower appellate court has failed to consider that the respondent herein, who was a tenant in the suit property belonging to the revision petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the property on 11. 2000; stopped paying rent; did not come forward to get the sale deed executed in his favour even though the revision petitioner is ready to execute the sale deed; he filed a suit for specific performance as if the revision petitioner was not ready to perform her part of the contract. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the learned counsel for the respondent reported no instructions and hence, the suit was dismissed for default with costs on 1. 2005; thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.725 of 2005 for restoration of the suit and the same was allowed and the suit was restored; the suit was posted for trial on 12. 2005; the plaintiffs counsel reported no instructions once again; the plaintiff, who was present in the court, prayed for an adjournment to engage a different counsel; hence, the trial was adjourned to 112. 2005 as a last chance; on 112. 2005; the plaintiffs counsel reported no instructions once again; the plaintiff, who was present in the court, prayed for an adjournment to engage a different counsel; hence, the trial was adjourned to 112. 2005 as a last chance; on 112. 2005, the plaintiff pleaded that he is not ready and represented that a counsel is coming from Madras; the defendant/petitioner, who was present in the court, stated that she is ready to execute the sale deed and thus the defendant submitted to a decree; but the plaintiff stated that the amendments are to be taken and that he is not ready to take the sale deed as such; the trial was once again adjourned to 112. 2005 as a last chance; on 112. 2005, there was no representation for the plaintiff; he was called absent; and the suit was dismissed for default with costs; and thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.522 of 2006 on 1. 2006 for restoration of the suit; the reasons stated by the respondent in the affidavit that he was not sanctioned leave by his superiors; and hence, he was not able to come to the Court on 112. 2005. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the aforesaid facts have been meticulously considered by the trial court and valid reasons have been recorded for dismissing the restoration petition. But according to the learned counsel the lower appellate court has not considered the aforesaid dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent but by observing that in the interest of justice an opportunity should be given to the respondent to prove his case on merits and restored the suit to file. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent is squatting upon the suit property right from 2000 without paying any rent and there is absolutely no justifiable cause for the absence of the respondent on 112. 2005 before the trial court. .10. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has shown sufficient cause for his non appearance on 112. 2005 and the respondent has produced necessary document to show that his application seeking leave was rejected and he had to attend the official work on 112. 2005 and that was the reason for his non appearance before the trial court on that date. 2005 and the respondent has produced necessary document to show that his application seeking leave was rejected and he had to attend the official work on 112. 2005 and that was the reason for his non appearance before the trial court on that date. The previous negligence on the part of the respondent cannot be taken into account while considering the present application as previous negligence had been considered and overlooked and earlier order has been set aside. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the previous absence of the respondent before the court and the dismissal of the suit on an earlier occasion and its restoration have no relevance for deciding the present application. If the respondent is able to show that his absence on 112. 2005 was beyond his control and there was sufficient cause for his absence on that date then the suit has to be restored to file. .12. In support of the contention, the learned counsel based reliance on the decision reported in (2000) 3 SCC 54 (G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada and others). In the said decision, in paragraph 7, it is laid down as under:- ."Unless the sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. The words "was prevented by any sufficient casue from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has to be construed as an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The "sufficient cause " for non appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. If "sufficient cause" is made out for non appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be penalised for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. If "sufficient cause" is made out for non appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were initiated against him, he cannot be penalised for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. In a case where the defendant approaches the court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits. 13. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in (2004) 13 SCC 691 (Bharat Singh and others vs. Narender Kumar and others), wherein it has been observed that ordinarily, a litigant should not be denied the liberty of contesting the case on merits. .14. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2006-1-L.W.137 (I.S.A. Rasak and another vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai). In the said decision, the in paragraph 9, it is laid down as under:- ."9. Any application filed under Or.9 R.9 C.P.C. with sufficient reasons, challenging the order of dismissal for default is to be favourably considered. In this regard, the Court are to adopt a liberal approach in consideration of such applications. It is always desirable to decide the matter on merits rather than to allow the suit to be dismissed for default." .15. The learned counsel based reliance on the decision reported in (2001) 1 M.L.J. 604 (Kuppammal (died) and 3 others vs. S.V. Kandasami). In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court laid down as under:- ."The court feels that in the instant case the cause shown by the appellant was sufficient for her non appearance on 29. 1984 and she cannot be penalised for her previous negligence, if any, as it has already been overlooked and condoned by the court, and she must be given an opportunity to defend the case on merits to meet the ends of justice." 16. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 117. The facts narrated above and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the respondent had been dragging on the suit. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 117. The facts narrated above and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the respondent had been dragging on the suit. Though the petitioner had been ready to execute the sale deed and submitted to a decree, the respondent was not ready to get the sale deed executed under one pretext or the other. 118. On an earlier occasion also, the suit was dismissed for default and the same was restored to file. On the second occasion, in the presence of the respondent, his counsel reported no instructions and the suit has been adjourned twice to enable the respondent to engage a counsel of his choice. On 112. 2005, when the case was called, as the respondent was not present, the suit was dismissed for default. 119. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the conduct of the respondent is highly reprehensible and his intention was only to drag on the suit so that he can squat upon the property without paying any rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in making the aforesaid submissions but the real question to be considered is as to whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the respondent on 112. 2005 when the suit was listed for trial. The reason assigned by the respondent is that he applied for leave, but the leave was not granted and he was to attend to his official work and hence, he was not able to be present on 112. 2005. The said fact has been considered by the trial court. But the trial court because of the earlier conduct and negligence on the part of the respondent was not inclined to restore the suit to file. But the lower appellate court has considered the cause shown by the respondent for his non appearance on 112. 2005 and accepting the same, allowed the appeal. .20. But the trial court because of the earlier conduct and negligence on the part of the respondent was not inclined to restore the suit to file. But the lower appellate court has considered the cause shown by the respondent for his non appearance on 112. 2005 and accepting the same, allowed the appeal. .20. Atthis juncture, it will be useful to refer to the observations of the the Apex Court in the decision reported in (2000) 3 SCC 54 = AIR 2000 SCC 1221 = 2000 – 3 – L.W.231 , cited supra, which reads as under:- ."This Court has to consider whether there was "Sufficient" cause for the absence on the relevant date, and not on previous/subsequent date. A party cannot be penalised for his/per previous negligence which has been overlooked and condoned earlier." 121. A perusal of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent shows that the cause for non appearance on 112. 2005 only has to be considered but not the earlier negligence which has already been condoned. Therefore, the trial court is not right in taking into consideration of the earlier conduct of the respondent and the pendency of the suit for dismissing the application. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the lower appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal. 122. But while allowing the appeal, the lower appellate Court should have taken into consideration the hardship that has been caused to the petitioner by the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent herein and should have compensated the petitioner by awarding costs. But the lower appellate court has failed to do so. 123. The facts narrated above shows that because of the conduct of the respondent in dragging on the suit right from 2001 the petitioner has been put to great hardship and therefore, this Court is of the view that awarding of costs would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the respondent herein is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-as costs to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment of costs, I.A.No.522 of 2006 shall stand allowed. 124. Withthe above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed. 25. Accordingly, the respondent herein is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-as costs to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment of costs, I.A.No.522 of 2006 shall stand allowed. 124. Withthe above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed. 25. As far as the C.R.P.No.962 of 2010, which has been filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No.2907 of 2009, the plaintiff in O.S.No.293 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, is concerned, the defendant/respondent has filed I.A.No.692 of 2009 seeking permission to file Additional Written Statement, which was allowed by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and aggrieved by the same, the above C.R.P. has been filed. 20.26. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that after the dismissal of the suit, a new sale agreement has been entered into and due to various developments, it is necessary for the defendant/respondent to file additional written statement. 227. The said petition was opposed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. 228. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the court below accepting the reasons assigned by the defendant/respondent allowed the petition. 229. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below. Further, since the trial has not commenced and after the dismissal of the suit, in view of the subsequent developments, it is necessary for the defendant/respondent herein to file additional written statement, the Court below allowed the defendant/respondent to file the additional written statement, which is permissible in law and the same cannot be deprived of. 230. When the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction properly, this Court cannot interfere with the order of the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is shown as perverse. In view of the above, the above revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. is also dismissed.