Judgment :- 1. Defendant in O.S.No.254 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent filed the above suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction. The revision petitioner, though entered appearance in the said suit and filed written statement, did not contest the suit and therefore, the revision petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 27.6.2006. Thereafter, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.28 of 2008 to execute the decree and notice was served on the revision petitioner on 21.4.2008 and thereafter he took steps to file the application to set aside the ex parte decree and there was a delay of 845 days in filing such application and to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, the application in I.A.No.1379 of 2009 was filed and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed. 3. Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, the revision petitioner has stated, in detail, the reason for filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree in November 2008, though the revision petitioner came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree on 21.4.2008 and having regard to the allegations stated in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the revision petitioner has given sufficient cause for not filing the application within the period of limitation and that can be considered liberally and the delay may condoned. He further submitted that after the ex parte decree was passed and the notice in E.P.No.28 of 2008 was served on the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner approached him and as the papers were not available in the court which passed the decree and he was not the Advocate who appeared for the revision petitioner during trial, he took steps to find out the reason for passing the ex parte decree and in that process, the revision petitioner was not able to file the application to set aside the ex parte decree immediately on receipt of notice in E.P.No.28 of 2008 and considering these aspects, the delay ought to have been condoned. He also relied upon the judgment in MOHAN,S. v. CRUZ MARY ( 2006 (1) CTC 191 ) and BALAKRISHNAN,N. v. M.KRISHNAMURTHY (1999-1-LW 739) in support of his contention that the length of delay should not be the criteria and the reason stated should be looked into and the court must be liberal in condoning the delay. For the same proposition, he also relied upon the decision in THE STATE OF W.B. v. THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS ( AIR 1972 SC 749 ), RAM NATH SAO @ RAM NATH SAHU & OTHERS v. GOBARDHAN SAO & OTHERS (2002-3-LW 417). He further submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in RAFIQ AND ANOTHER v. MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) held that the party should not suffer for the inaction on the part of his counsel and therefore, the reason stated by the revision petitioner for condoning the delay can be accepted and the delay may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the connected suit, the same Society was set ex parte in O.S.No.249 of 1999 and the same revision petitioner filed application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and that application was dismissed by the court below and the revision petitioner filed revision 3782 of 2011 and this court dismissed the revision holding that on previous occasion also the revision petitioner was set ex parte and the suit was restored at the instance of the revision petitioner and even thereafter, he did not prosecute the case and therefore, the reason for condoning the delay is not bona fide and dismissed he revision. He further submitted that in the judgment in SHANMUGAM v. CHOKKALINGAM ( 2009 (5) CTC 48 ), this court has taken a similar view that when the revision petitioner had taken part in the execution proceedings and did not file any application to set aside the ex parte decree, the decree cannot be set side at a later point of time. He also relied upon the judgment in UNION BANK OF INDIA v. K.R.JEWELLERS (2008 (5) CTC 651) wherein a Division Bench of this court held that by making mere allegation of negligence against the counsel, the delay cannot be condoned. He also relied upon the judgment in UNION BANK OF INDIA v. K.R.JEWELLERS (2008 (5) CTC 651) wherein a Division Bench of this court held that by making mere allegation of negligence against the counsel, the delay cannot be condoned. He also relied upon the decision in 2011 LANKA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE OF A.P. ( (2011) 4 SCC 363 ) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that High Court should not accept the pathetic explanation offered by the respondent while condoning the delay and unless the delay has been properly explained, the delay should not be condoned. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner entered appearance in execution proceedings and thereafter, he filed application only in November 2008, the delay is deliberate and the same cannot be condoned. 5. It is seen from the judgments placed before me by both the counsel that the Honourable supreme Court and our High Court have held that while considering the application for condoning the delay, the court should take a pragmatic approach and the court should not be swayed by prejudices, hostility or predilections and liberal approach should be given while considering the application for condoning the delay. Further, the parties also cannot put blame on the counsel and expect the court to condone the delay by stating that he was misled by the counsel and therefore, the delay has to be condoned. Further, it has been held that it is not the number of days that has to be taken into consideration but the cause stated by the petitioner to condone the delay has to be considered as to whether the cause as a sufficient cause or not. 6. In this case, it is seen from paras 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated, in detail, various steps taken by the counsel who was engaged by the revision petitioner to trace the bundle for ascertaining the reason for passing the ex parte decree and according to the revision petitioner, only on 13.10.2008, they were able to get the certified copies of the ex parte decree and thereafter, the application was filed to condone the delay. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also, in all fairness, admitted that the application could not be filed immediately on receipt of the notice in E.P.No.28 of 2008 as he was not sure about the reason for passing the ex parte decree and therefore, he took steps to get the certified copy of the order and only thereafter, he filed the application. 7. Therefore, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that because of his advice, the application was not filed immediately on receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, in my opinion, the party should not suffer for the inaction on the part of the counsel. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the order of the court below on condition of payment of Rs.3000/= to the respondent herein by the revision petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Court below is directed to consider the application to set aside the ex parte within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in the event of such petition being allowed, the court is directed to dispose of the main suit within two months thereafter. The revision petition is ordered accordingly. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.