Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 9.6.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.128 of 2010 in O.S.No.357 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondents 1 to 5 herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.357 of 2006 with the following prayer: 'To pass a decree a) Declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the respective share of the suit properties as detailed in the plaint and put them in possession of their respective shares, b) Aware compensation at a consolidated sum of Rs.24,000/-per annum towards the damage and mesne profits from the date of suit till possession is surrendered to the plaintiff; c) Award the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs." (extracted as such) (ii) Written statement was filed. However, the defendants failed to appear subsequently. Whereupon ex-parte decree was passed. (iii) Application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., to get set aside the ex-parte decree, was filed along with an application I.A.No.128 of 2010 to get the delay of 133 days condoned in filing such application. (iv) After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the said I.A.No.128 of 2010. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order this civil revision petition has been focussed by the defendants on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would submit that the lower Court failed to take into account the genuine reason furnished by the revision petitioners/defendants for getting the delay condoned. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, there was communication gap between the defendants and their advocate and that alone resulted in such delay. However, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs would oppose the revision contending that the reasons found set out for getting the delay condoned were untenable. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was not justified in condoning the delay of 133 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C? 7. The delay in my considered opinion was not huge. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was not justified in condoning the delay of 133 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C? 7. The delay in my considered opinion was not huge. The expectation of the lower Court was that the lawyer concerned should have been examined as a witness to prove that there was communication gap. In my opinion such an approach on the part of the lower Court was not tenable and that too, in view of the small delay involved in this case. 8. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 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 . ..........................." 14. ..........................." 14. One other decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 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. 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) 9. In view of the dicta as found enunciated in the above said precedents of the Honourable Apex Court, I would like to set aside the order of the lower Court and allow the I.A.No.128 of 2010 subject to payment of a total cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) payable by the revision petitioners herein to the respondents 1 to 5 herein/plaintiffs within one week from this date and accordingly it is ordered. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs would make an extempore submission that a time limit might be fixed for the early disposal of the matter. 11. In view of the above, on compliance with this order, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months thereafter. 12. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.