JUDGMENT P.T. ASHA, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.7053 of 2008 in O.S.No.4246 of 2001 in and by which the Learned Judge has condone the delay of 312 days in filing the application to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 05.02.2003. The aggrieved plaintiff has preferred this revision. 2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this revision are as follows:- 2.1 The revision petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.4246 of 2001, seeking the following reliefs:- (a). For a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein their men, agents and any person claiming under them from trespassing into the suit property or dealing with the suit property. (b). For the grant of mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to construct the compound wall on the southern side which is being demolished, which is situate in Survey No.355/2 between the revision petitioner's property and the Monahan Primary School. 2.2 It appears that the respondents herein had entered appearance through counsel and had filed the counter in I.A.No.12053 of 2003 thereafter they were set ex-parte since, the respondents had not filed their written statement. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed on 05.02.2003. The respondents herein had filed the impugned I.A to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The affidavit was sworn to by Rev.E.W.Christopher who described himself as the Honorary Secretary of the Diocese of Madras. He would state that they had entrusted the brief to their earlier counsels Ms.Porkodi & Mr.A.P.Peter Gunasekaran and also filed counter in I.A.No.12053 of 2001 which was an application moved by the plaintiff for an interim injunction. The Deponent would further submit that they were under the impression that the counsel would be taking care of the case and would call them as and when required however, to their utter shock and surprise in a connected suit O.S.No.5914 of 2003 pending on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the respondent had filed I.A.No.21825 of 2003 for a mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioner to restore the electricity connection to their caretaker's Quarters. In this application, the revision petitioner herein had filed the counter on 01.12.2003 and in the said counter they had stated that the suit in O.S.No.4246 of 2001 had been decreed as prayed for on 05.02.2003. In this application, the revision petitioner herein had filed the counter on 01.12.2003 and in the said counter they had stated that the suit in O.S.No.4246 of 2001 had been decreed as prayed for on 05.02.2003. Immediately on reading the counter their counsel in O.S.No.5914 of 2003, informed the respondents about the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.4246 of 2001. Thereafter the attempts made by them to contact their earlier counsel proved futile and they had to seek the assistance of their counsel appearing in O.S.No.5914 of 2003 to provide them with the information since the previous counsel had not given their "No objection" for the respondents engaging a new counsel. There was some delay and the same could be obtained by them only on 10.01.2004 immediately thereafter the impugned petition came to be filed by them. However, in the said process, there was a delay of 312 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. This delay was neither wilful nor wanton but due to the circumstances mentioned in the affidavit. The respondent had further stated that they have a substantial case to put forward in the suit and they have very good chances of succeeding in the suit, therefore the delay should be condoned and the ex-parte decree should be set aside. 3. The Revision petitioners filed a counter inter alia making the following submissions. (i). The deponent who has sworn to the affidavit is not an authorised person and he has been described as the Honorary Secretary of the Diocese of Madras, whereas the first petitioner association was not controlled by the Diocese of Madras. (ii). The Secretary cannot represent the second petitioner School and therefore the petition which is filed without authority should be dismissed. (iii). The respondents have come to Court making false statements. (iv). The respondents had taken adjournments over 1= years just to file the written statements and counter and they had deliberately allowed themselves to be set ex-parte that the respondents are very much aware about the ex-parte decree but they have not taken steps to set-aside the same in time. (v). That allegations made against the previous counsel was false and made only with the object of creating a case for setting aside the ex-parte decree. (vi). That the petitioner had not explained each and every days delay. 4. (v). That allegations made against the previous counsel was false and made only with the object of creating a case for setting aside the ex-parte decree. (vi). That the petitioner had not explained each and every days delay. 4. The learned XIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, on consideration of the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the documents filed by the respondent had allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned Judge has held that the application has been moved within a reasonable time of their acquiring knowledge about the ex-parte decree but however there was an inordinate delay in numbering the petition and placing it for orders and since this delay has caused some prejudice to the revision petitioner, the learned Judge has proceeded to allow the application on terms. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. Heard M/s. Devadason & Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s. Adrian D. Rozario, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place his main arguments on the fact that the person who has sworn to the affidavit is not a Director of the first respondent/Association and he is also in no way connected with the second respondent School. He had drawn my attention to the list of members of the first respondent/Association filed with the Registrar of Companies in which the name of the deponent does not feature. Similarly, in the minutes of the 57th Annual General Meeting held on 17.05.2005, the members list does not show the name of Rev. E.W. Christopher. The counsel would further argue that the reasons given in the affidavit are not satisfactory and every days delay has not been amply explained. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted the following judgments for consideration of this Court:- Union Bank of India, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore Vs. K.R.Jewellers and other, (2008) 5 CTC 651. C.Raghupathy Vs. C.Govindan and Others, (2009) 1 CTC 319 . Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2009) 2 MLJ 1047. 9. M/S.Adrian D.Rozario appearing for the respondents have explained the constitution of the first respondent/Association as being a body consisting of 25 Diocese and whose administrative body is the Synod. C.Raghupathy Vs. C.Govindan and Others, (2009) 1 CTC 319 . Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2009) 2 MLJ 1047. 9. M/S.Adrian D.Rozario appearing for the respondents have explained the constitution of the first respondent/Association as being a body consisting of 25 Diocese and whose administrative body is the Synod. The business and affairs of the Association is Managed by a committee of Management called the committee, consisting of not less than three or not more than seven members. 9.1 The committee is authorised:-To appoint or remove and delegate any of their powers to a manager or an Attorney or sub-committee or sub-committees consisting of one or more members of the committee, and to fix the quorum of any sub-committees. 10. In support of the contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit the following judgments:- N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 . Balraj Taneja and another Vs. Sunil Madan and another, (1999) 8 SCC 396 . P.Subramanian Vs. S.Viswasam, (2011) 2 LW 53 . 10. He would contend that Rev.E.W.Christopher has been authorised by the committee to act as an agent of the first respondent Association. He has also been given a Power of Attorney in this regard. He would draw my attention to the plaint in O.S.No.1185 of 2001, wherein the first respondent Association is represented by its Power of Attorney Rev.E.W.Christopher who is also the Secretary and Mr.V.Kasturi, Treasurer of the Diocese of Madras. In the suit O.S.No.2640 of 2001 also the first respondent is represented by the Power of Attorneys Rev.E.W.Christopher and Mr.V.Kasturi. In both the suits the revision petitioner is a party and therefore aware that the said Rev.E.W.Chrisptopher is a power agent of the Association. The Vakalat have also been filed by Rev.E.W.Christopher and all other legal proceedings have only been signed by the said Rev.E.W.Chrisptopher. He would contend that these documents which have come from the custody of the revision petitioner and therefore the revision petitioner cannot now turn around and question the locus of the said Rev.E.W.Chrisptopher to file the proceedings on behalf of the first respondent Association. 11. Heard the submissions and perused the materials on record. 12. The main plank of attack on the side of the revision petitioner is that the persons who have sworn to the affidavit are not the authorised representatives of the first respondent Association. 11. Heard the submissions and perused the materials on record. 12. The main plank of attack on the side of the revision petitioner is that the persons who have sworn to the affidavit are not the authorised representatives of the first respondent Association. However, on perusal of the earlier suits, it is seen that the all the proceedings filed way back in 2001 has been initiated only by the said Rev.E.W.Chirstopher for and on behalf of the first respondent Association. Therefore the revision petitioner is very much aware about the position that Rev.E.W.Christopher holds with the first respondent Association since in all other proceedings the revision petitioner is also a party. I am therefore inclined to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the affidavit to condone the delay has been filed by the person authorised by the first respondent Association. The first respondent has narrated the reasons for not been aware of the ex-parte decree in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the impugned petition. It is seen that the first respondent, on coming to know about the ex-parte decree has immediately taken steps to rectify the omission. However, it appears that they did not have the co-operation of their erstwhile Advocates, which had caused the delay. 13. Be that as it may the parties are contesting in various suit with reference to the subject matter of this suit O.S.No.4246 of 2001. The reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the impugned petition appears to be satisfactory. 14. In the judgment Union Bank of India, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore Vs. K.R.Jewellers and Others, (2008) 5 CTC 651, this Court has held that mere allegation against the counsel is not the ground to condone the delay since the party has an equal responsibility to follow up the matter, the facts of this judgment would not apply to the facts of the instant case since it is seen that the parties are contesting other suits and it is only in the course of the counter filed in other connected suit in O.S.No.5914 of 2003, that the respondents herein had come to learn about the ex-parte decree. Therefore, there appears to be a genuine mistake and not a deliberate intent to allow the suit to be set ex-parte. 15. Therefore, there appears to be a genuine mistake and not a deliberate intent to allow the suit to be set ex-parte. 15. The next judgment which has been relied upon by the revision petitioner in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2009) 2 MLJ 1047 is a case where sufficient cause have not been shown in the affidavit and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Court should exercise its discretion judiciously and not to condone an inordinate delay where no sufficient cause is shown. Here it is seen that the delay is not that inordinate and furthermore sufficient reasons has been provided, both for the failure to appear before the Court and the reasons for the ensuing delay. This Judgment would also not advance the case of the revision petitioner. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , cited on the side of the respondents had held that the word "sufficient cause" has to be liberally construed and the primary duty of the Court is to advance substantial justice. The Court has to exercise caution only to see that such applications are not a ruse on the part of the parties to resort to dilatory tactics. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court and the length of delay is not the matter and it is only the acceptability of the reason which is the criteria. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows in paragraphs 9 and para 13:- Para. 9:- It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. Para.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 delay, the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. 17. I am of the view that the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai has correctly exercised its discretion and taking into account the prejudice that has been caused to the revision petitioner as ordered costs. This is clearly in keeping with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Court. 18. This is clearly in keeping with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Court. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, in I.A.No.7053 of 2008 in O.S.No.4246 of 2001 is hereby confirmed. Considering the facts that the suit is of the year 2003, the learned XIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, is directed to expeditiously decide the suit. No costs. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.