Judgment : 1. The civil revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the original suit filed this civil revision petition against the order passed in I.A.No.19242 of 2006 on the file of the City Civil Court(II Additional Judge), Madras. 2. For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the original suit is referred as the revision petitioner and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as the respondent hereinafter. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on records. 4. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.7978 of 1997 for recovery a sum of Rs.4,17,230/-with interest as against the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner/defendant remained exparte and the exparte decree passed on 28.08.1998, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.13341 of 1998 to set aside the exparte decree and the petitioner was allowed. It is also revealed that later the above said suit was dismissed for default on 26.02.2002. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2007 to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the petition in I.A.SR.No.20854 of 2002 to restore the above said suit in O.S.No.7978 of 1997. The above said I.A.No.8217 of 2002 was dismissed on 05.09.2002. The respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No.19242 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1436 days in restoring the petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2002. In the above said affidavit, it is averred that the main suit was posted in special list on 26.02.2002. But, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent namely, Mr.A.P.Venkatachalam did not attend the Court and subsequently, he has filed a petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2002. But, the above said petition was dismissed on 05.09.2002. Since the learned counsel for the respondent namely, A.P.Venkatachalam has wrongly noted the hearing date and therefore, he did not attend the Court on 05.09.2002. Further, the counsel was suffering from high blood pressure and other illness and therefore, he could not attend the Court during the time of trial posted the case in the special list on 26.02.2002. The above said counsel has already filed another petition to set aside the dismissal order in I.A.No.8217 of 2002, but it could not be traced out. Further, the above said counsel has not given any change of vakalath in favour of the present counsels namely, Mr.R.Janardhan Rao and Mr.K.Raghavendiran. The above said counsel has already filed another petition to set aside the dismissal order in I.A.No.8217 of 2002, but it could not be traced out. Further, the above said counsel has not given any change of vakalath in favour of the present counsels namely, Mr.R.Janardhan Rao and Mr.K.Raghavendiran. The petitioner-Insurance Corporation could not contact the earlier counsel in time, since he becomes ill and thereafter, the case bundle was traced out and obtained from the earlier counsel for taking steps to restore the petition and the suit. Therefore, prayed for to condone the delay of 1436 days in filing the petition in I.A.No.19242 of 2006 to restore the petition in I.A.NO.8217 of 2002. 5. The revision petitioner has filed a counter, in which he denied various averments stated in the affidavit and also stated that the above said petition is not at all maintainable and the respondent should prove all the averments in the affidavit. It is also averred in the counter that absolutely there is no explanation much less reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 1436 days and if the delay is condoned, the respondent will put to suffer grave prejudice and irreparable hardship and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. The trial Court has allowed the above said petition on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that from the date of institution of the suit, the respondent has not shown any interest in prosecuting the suit and absolutely, there is no reason to condone the abnormal delay of 1436 days. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent himself admitted in his affidavit that the earlier counsel namely, Mr.A.P.Venkatachalam has filed another petition to set aside the dismissal order of the petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2002,but, it could not be traced out and therefore, the second petition filed by the respondent has not at all maintainable. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the trial court has not at all considered that the respondent has failed to give any particulars about the date of knowledge, date of change of vakalath given by the earlier counsel, the date of receipt of the bundle by the present counsel etc., and therefore, the respondent has suppressed the material facts in the affidavit and on that ground alone the petition filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the above said delay was occurred only due to conduct of the earlier counsel namely, A.P.Venkatachalam, who has not properly informed to the respondent and also not properly conducted the case. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that due to illness, the above said counsel was unable to attend the Court properly and file the petition within the time and hence, the above said fault is only on the previous counsel. Therefore, the parties would not be suffered. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit is involved several lakhs of rupees and a fair opportunity to be given to the respondent to contest the suit and dispose of the same on merits. Accordingly, the trial Court has correctly considered all the above said aspects and finally, allowed the petition on payment of costs and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said correct findings of the trial court. 9. Admittedly, the respondent herein filed a suit in the year 1996 for recovery of Rs.4,17,230/-with interest. The revision petitioner herein remained exparte in the above said suit and the exparte decree was passed on 20.08.1998 and thereafter, the revision petitioner filed the petition in I.A.No.13341 of 1998 to set aside the exparte decree and then, filed the written statement on 24.01.1999. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on 26.02.2002, since the respondent has not appeared before the trial Court. The respondent filed the petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2002 to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the petition to restore the above said suit, but that petition was also dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent counsel on 05.09.2002. This petition is filed to restore the above said I.A.No.8217 of 2002. 10. The respondent filed the petition in I.A.No.8217 of 2002 to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the petition to restore the above said suit, but that petition was also dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent counsel on 05.09.2002. This petition is filed to restore the above said I.A.No.8217 of 2002. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent mainly contended that the counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Corporation has not properly conducted the case and further, the counsel was seriously ill and therefore, the respondent herein was unable to receive the bundle from the earlier counsel. Only after receiving the bundle, this petition has been filed through the present counsel. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent only due to fault of the earlier counsel namely, Mr. A.P.Venkatachalam, the above said delay has been occurred. The trial Court has also considered the above said fault of the earlier counsel and also the suit involved several lakhs of rupees and the petition has been allowed by the trial Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also pointed that the earlier counsel has not at all informed or handed over the papers in respect of the earlier petition filed to set aside the orders and therefore, the particulars are not furnished in the affidavit. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the trial Court has correctly allowed the petition and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said findings. 12. Admittedly, the revision petitioner himself remained exparte in the earlier occasion and on petition filed by the revision petitioner, the exparte decree was set aside. Therefore, both sides are failed to appear before the trial Court. 13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on a decision of this Court reported inMurali v. Wilkinson Sword (India) Ltd., Now Gillette India Limited, rep.by its Regional Commercial Executive, III Floor P.M.Towers, 37, Greams Road, Chennai [2007-1 L.W. 26] in which, paragraph No.19 reads as under: “19. Refusing to condone the delay would result in foreclosing the party from putting forth his defence. Normally, the Court should lean towards disposal of the cases on merits by affording a fair opportunity. An exparte decree is not final, so long as the party had no knowledge of the Decree passed against him. Refusing to condone the delay would result in foreclosing the party from putting forth his defence. Normally, the Court should lean towards disposal of the cases on merits by affording a fair opportunity. An exparte decree is not final, so long as the party had no knowledge of the Decree passed against him. While so, the Transferee Company-Gillette India Limited cannot be burdened with the liability without trial when no indifference could be attributed to Gillette India Limited. It is well settled that the words “Sufficient Cause” should receive liberal construction sol as to advance substantial justice. When no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party, the lower Court, after Enquiry has condoned the delay finding that there is “Sufficient Cause” and also setting aside the exparte order. When the Court below has exercised the discretion, exercising the Revisional Jurisdiction, the High Court would not interfere unless the Impugned Order is shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous. There is nothing is suggest that the Impugned orders suffer from perversity or erroneous approach warranting interference.” 14. A careful reading of the above said decision and also law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the respondent to contest the case as rightly held by the trial Court. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court is not perverse. Considering the above said facts, this Court is of the view that the revision petition has to be dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.