ORDER : The second claimant Jambunathan suffered an ex parte decree in L.A.O.P. No. 66 of 1989 on 18.02.1988. The first claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount involved in the matter as per the decree passed in the land acquisition original proceedings. It is found that the second claimant had also passed away on 16.03.1997. The revision petitioner claiming to be the son of the second claimant and also claiming to be entitled to the amount involved in the above said land acquisition original proceedings as the legatee of the Will executed by his father and further stating that while going through the materials of his father in the bureau during 2001, he had come across a loose sheet containing the reference about the land acquisition original proceedings and further according to him, on enquiry about the same with his Advocate Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana and thereafter, on verification of the records concerned, he had come to understand that an ex parte decree has been passed against his father, namely, the second claimant in the proceedings and hence, according to him, the delay of 4960 days had occurred in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the above said delay, he has preferred I.A.No.84 of 2004. Similarly, as there was a delay in setting aside the abatement and to record him as the legal representative of the deceased second claimant, he has preferred I.A.No.85 of 2004 to condone the delay of 2043 days pertaining to the same. 2. The above said applications were contested by the second respondent/first claimant stating that the applications laid by the revision petitioner are not maintainable either in law or on facts and the revision petitioner has to establish that he is entitled to claim the amount involved in the proceedings as the legatee of the Will said to have been executed by his father and the details of the Will having not been given and the Will having not been established as per law, the revision petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs sought for in the applications and further, it is also stated that no cause whatsoever has been given by the revision petitioner to condone the huge and inordinate delay and the cause also has not been substantiated by him with acceptable materials and therefore, the applications preferred by him are liable to be dismissed. 3. It is found that the revision petitioner, in support of his case, has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P2 and no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the respondents. 4. The Court below, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and also on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, holding that the cause given by the revision petitioner for the condonation of the huge and inordinate delay is not sufficient and further holding that the revision petitioner has not established the cause pleaded by him with acceptable materials and further holding that the revision petitioner having not established that he is entitled to maintain the applications as the legatee of the Will said to have been executed by his father, particularly, failed to establish that he is entitled to claim the amount involved in the proceedings, dismissed the applications preferred by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petitions have come to be preferred. 5. The revision petitioner's father, who is the second claimant, has suffered an ex parte decree in the land acquisition original proceedings on 18.02.1988. As seen from the materials placed, it is found that the counsel, who is now appearing for the revision petitioner, had also appeared for his father in the land acquisition original proceedings. It is also further seen that the counsel represented before the Court that he has no instructions as regards his client i.e., father of the revision petitioner and accordingly, the revision petitioner's father having been called and remaining absent, setting him ex parte, it is found that considering the materials placed, the Court below had passed the order, dated 18.02.1988 in the land acquisition original proceedings. Therefore, it is found that on the date of passing of the ex parte decree, the revision petitioner's father was alive and also aware of the proceedings thereto. It is further seen that only on 16.03.1997, the revision petitioner's father died. It is, therefore, seen that nearly more than nine years, the revision petitioner's father had been alive after the passing of the ex parte decree against him in the land acquisition original proceedings. It is further seen that only on 16.03.1997, the revision petitioner's father died. It is, therefore, seen that nearly more than nine years, the revision petitioner's father had been alive after the passing of the ex parte decree against him in the land acquisition original proceedings. If really, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the revision petitioner's father was seriously affected by the ex parte decree passed in the land acquisition original proceedings, he would have taken appropriate steps during his lifetime to set aside the same. However, as rightly argued, inasmuch as the revision petitioner's father did not evince any interest to get the amount the involved in the land acquisition original proceedings and accordingly, left the matter to go ex parte and thereafter, even after the passing of the ex parte decree, had not cared to set aside the same till his lifetime i.e., for more than nine years, therefore, the case of the revision petitioner that the ex parte decree has come to his knowledge only during 2001 i.e., after two or three years from the date of death of his father, as such cannot be readily accepted. 6. Now, according to the revision petitioner, after the death his father, while going through his bureau in the year 2001, he had come across a loose sheet containing the reference about the land acquisition original proceedings and on further enquiry with reference to the same through his Advocate and on a perusal of the Court records, according to him, the ex parte decree passed against his father in the proceedings has come to his knowledge and hence, the delay had occurred. The said cause given by the revision petitioner for the condonation of the delay is seriously disputed by the respondents. The above cause put forth by the revision petitioner has not been substantiated by him with acceptable material. It is very strange to state that after the death of his father during 1997, he had come across the loose sheet in the bureau of his father containing the reference about the land acquisition original proceedings. The above cause put forth by the revision petitioner has not been substantiated by him with acceptable material. It is very strange to state that after the death of his father during 1997, he had come across the loose sheet in the bureau of his father containing the reference about the land acquisition original proceedings. When it is found that the father himself had not taken care to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him for more than nine years, the case of the revision petitioner that after the death of his father, he had come to know about the ex parte decree while going through the bureau of his father as such cannot be readily accepted. Therefore, it is found that as rightly determined by the Court below, the cause given by the revision petitioner for the huge and inordinate delay is unacceptable and also not established. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in matters of this nature, the Court should take a liberal approach and the reasons for each and every day delay need not be examined in detail and it is enough if sufficient cause is given and therefore, prayed for the entertainment of the applications for the condonation of delay and in this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 1998 (2) MLJ 630 [Chinnathayee Ammal vs. Mottaya Gounder], 1999-I-L.W.739 : 1999 (1) MLJ 114 SC [N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy], 2000-1-L.W.547 [V.Amudha vs. S.A. Arumugham and others] and 2005 (5) CTC 460 [S. Thiruvariamuthu and others vs. Southern Railways and others]. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the sine qua non for the condonation of the delay is that sufficient cause should be given by the party concerned, who pleads the delay and only on the sufficient case being given and the same being substantiated with acceptable materials, the question of condoning the same could be considered. According to him, inasmuch as no sufficient cause whatsoever has been given by the revision petitioner for the inordinate delay and the cause pleaded also seems to be very artificial and unnatural and when the father himself had not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him for several years, according to him, the case of the revision petitioner that three years after the death of his father, he had come to know about the ex parte decree as such cannot be believed and particularly, when the said cause has not been substantiated by the revision petitioner with acceptable material other than his ipse dixit testimony, it is thus contended that the civil revision petitions are not to be accepted and liable to be rejected. In this connection, the decisions reported in AIR 1941 PC 6 [General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd., vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim], AIR 2007 SCC 2624 [D.Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and another], 2012 (1) CTC 801 [A. Seyed Hakim and others vs. K.S. Maideen and another], 2013 (5) CTC 547 [Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others] and AIR 2014 SC 1612 [Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others]. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 9. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case as pleaded above and in the light of the discussions made above, it is found that the cause given by the revision petitioner for the condonation of the huge and inordinate delay cannot be termed as sufficient cause and that apart, the said cause also having not been established by the revision petitioner prima facie by producing acceptable and reliable material and that apart, when his father himself had not cared to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him till his death i.e., for more than nine years and therefore, the revision petitioner's claim that he has been necessitated to lay the application to set aside the ex parte decree at a belated point of time without adducing any cause whatsoever as such cannot be accepted readily. It is, therefore, found that the Court below has rightly rejected the applications preferred by the revision petitioner as devoid of merits. 10. It is, therefore, found that the Court below has rightly rejected the applications preferred by the revision petitioner as devoid of merits. 10. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not call for any interference from this Court and resultantly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.