Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi in I.A.No.144 of 2010 in unfiled A.S.No....2010, this civil revision petition has been for cussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The final decree was passed by the court concerned, as against which, the revision petitioner desired to file appeal. However, there was a delay of 359 days; wherefore, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay condoned. (ii) The said application was resisted by the respondents herein. (iii) Whereupon, the Court dismissed the application. (iv) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal, this revision has been for cussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and pilot his arguments to the effect that the petitioner could not file the appeal in time due to his ill-health, so to say, he was suffering from jaundice. He would further submit that he could not even produce any clinching evidence, viz., medical records, in respect of his contention though he was suffering from jaundice. However, the lower court took serious view of the matter and dismissed the said application thereby depriving the petitioner from participating in the appeal process in the way known to law. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the order of the lower court by allowing this revision. 5. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondents, no one represents. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that clinching evidence was not produced? 7. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act bespeak that the revision petitioner was suffering from jaundice and hence, he could not present the memorandum of appeal within time. No doubt, now the law is to the effect that each and every day's delay need not be explained. By and large, there should be clinching reason for condoning the delay. 8. No doubt, now the law is to the effect that each and every day's delay need not be explained. By and large, there should be clinching reason for condoning the delay. 8. At this juncture, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: (i) 2010(2) Supreme 115 (Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd., vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another) and an excerpt from it would run thus: "8. ............The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and other similar statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 . ..........................." (ii) AIR 2002 SC 1201 (Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and aothers v. Gobardhan Sao and others) also could fruitfully be cited; certain excerpts from it would run thus: "13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses." (emphasis added) A mere poring over and perusal of the aforesaid precedents would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that no straight jacket formula can be had for condoning the delay. 9. Here, the revision petitioner is among the close relatives and as against the final decree, the revision petitioner wants to file an appeal and in that connection, there was a delay. 10. Hence, I am of the view that a strict approach is not contemplated. Accordingly, in the interest of audi alteram partem the lower court could have, on cost, condoned the delay. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner himself would submit that during the pendency of the application before the appellate court, E.P was filed and execution was effected. However, he would contend that if the appellate court on hearing the appeal, modifies or reverses the final decree, then only the steps effected during execution would stand annulled or otherwise that would stand. 12. In such a case, I am of the view that the delay could be condoned subject to payment of cost of a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to the respondents in total, within a period of 15 days from this date. On such compliance with the order, the lower court shall number the appeal or if it is otherwise than in order. 13. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.