JUDGMENT : 1. This revision has been filed against the dismissal of the application filed to restore the suit filed by the temple in the year 1987. 2. The background leading to filing of this revision is as follows: The suit has been filed in O.S.718 of 1987 by the erstwhile Trustee of the Arulmighu Lakshmi Narayana Perumal & Visweswarswamy Temple for declaration and for recovery of possession from the defendant on the ground that the property is a temple property and originally leased to the grandfather of the defendant. The written statement filed by the defendant reveals that the property has been leased to one Aasu Ganapathi Iyer. When the suit continued in the name of erstwhile Trustee, on 25.11.1993, the counsel has presented a memo in the trial Court stating that a new Trustee has been appointed, therefore, the cause title has to be amended. However, the trial Court dismissed the memo and consequently dismissed the suit for default. Thereafter, an Executive officer has been appointed on 24.01.1998 for the temple. Thereafter, it appears that an extent of 321 sq.mt. has been acquired by the Highways Department in the suit property. The defendant herein has claimed a compensation and in fact, compensation has also been awarded. Challenging the same, a third party has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4633 of 2009 before this Court wherein the Executive Officer has also been made as a fifth respondent. The above Writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its Order dated 07.09.2009 taking note of the fact that the suit filed by the temple has been dismissed long ago and no appeal has been filed against the said dismissal of the Suit. Therefore, the Executive Officer has filed an application to condone the delay of 5840 days in preferring the appeal contending that since he has been appointed as an Executive Officer in the year 1998, no body has brought to his notice about the suit filed by the erstwhile Trustee and he came to know about the dismissal of the suit only after the disposal of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.4633 of 2009 on 07.09.2009. Thereafter, he had applied for the certified copies and hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal and an application has been filed within the three months from the date of his knowledge of the dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, he had applied for the certified copies and hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal and an application has been filed within the three months from the date of his knowledge of the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, he sought to condone the entire delay which occurred even prior to his knowledge and filed an application to condone the delay on 22.01.2008. 3. The respondent disputed the allegation of the Executive Officer. The trial Court dismissed the application on 08.02.2013. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that admittedly, the Executive Officer has been appointed in the year 1998. Only after the disposal of the Writ Petition in the year 2009, he came to know about the dismissal of the suit originally filed by the erstwhile Trustee. Then, he immediately filed an application to condone the delay within three months of his knowledge and to condone the entire delay and submitted that the property is the temple property and the respondent is in occupation of the property only on the strength of the lease executed in favour of his grand father by one Aasu Ganapathy Iyer, who was put in charge of the property in lieu of his service to the temple and submitted that though the delay appears to be huge, considering the factual aspects, liberal approach has to be given to protect the temple properties. Hence, prayed for allowing the revision. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this is a third round of litigation. Earlier a suit in O.S.No.761 of 1987, which was filed by the Trustees was dismissed. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the erstwhile Trustee and the Fit Person was also brought on record, which was dismissed for default in the year 1993 itself. Thereafter, a Writ Petition has been filed wherein the Executive Officer was one of the respondents. Even after disposal of the Writ Petition, there is a delay of more than three months in filing this application. All these facts clearly indicate that there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner. The suit has been dismissed in the year 1993 and the delay is huge and the Order of the trial Court is well balanced and does not require any interference. 5. All these facts clearly indicate that there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner. The suit has been dismissed in the year 1993 and the delay is huge and the Order of the trial Court is well balanced and does not require any interference. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit has been originally filed by one of the Managing Trustee, one Subramanian in the year 1987 for declaration and recovery of possession on the basis that the property is a temple property. It is also not in dispute that the above suit was dismissed for default on 25.11.1993. A careful perusal of the Order of the trial Court will clearly indicate that the suit itself has been dismissed for default. Though in the cause title, it is shown as Inspector HR & CE Department and they have been brought on record, it appears to be wrongly drafted for the reasons that the trial Court has itself recorded that the counsel has filed a memo informing that a new Trustee has been appointed and he has to be impleaded. However, the trial Court rejected the same and dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, merely because in the cause title the Inspector of the HR & CE has been reflected in the decree, it cannot be taken advantage by the respondent that the Inspector has already been impeaded in the suit. But the fact remains that the trial Court did not allow the new Trusttee to be impleaded, further dismissed the suit. After dismissal of the suit, admittedly, no application has been filed and an Executive Officer has been appointed to the temple on 21.04.1998. This fact is also not in dispute. 7. It is the contention of the Executive Officer that after his appointment, nobody has brought to his notice about the suit and no records have been brought to his notice. He had no knowledge about the dismissal of the suit. He came to know about the dismissal of the suit only when the Writ Petition No.4633 of 2009 has been disposed of. Thereafter, he had filed an application to condone the delay in filing an application to restore the suit. 8. He had no knowledge about the dismissal of the suit. He came to know about the dismissal of the suit only when the Writ Petition No.4633 of 2009 has been disposed of. Thereafter, he had filed an application to condone the delay in filing an application to restore the suit. 8. It is to be noted that the original suit has been filed by the Trustees. The Trustees in the temple are normally elected among themselves. It is also normal practice that the Trustees appointed among themselves would not maintain proper records. After Trusteeship has been ceased, they have no access to the temple to follow the suit originally filed by them. When private persons ceased to be Trustees of the temple and they have not informed anything about the suit to the newly appointed Executive Officer, the contention of the Executive Officer that he has no knowledge about the previous suit and nobody has informed him about the previous suit, appears to be well founded and probable. The Writ Petition has been disposed of on 07.09.2009. Thereafter, a review application has also been filed on 02.11.2009 to review the Writ Order on the ground that the fifth respondent namely the Executive Officer name was not printed on that day. At any event, he has filed an application to condone the delay on 21.01.2009, within three months after the disposal of the Writ Petition. Considering the nature of the allegations, particularly Writ Petition has been filed by a third party and the Writ Petition has been filed only on 11.03.2009 wherein an observation has been made with regard to the dismissal of the suit in the year 1993. The allegation of the Executive Officer that he acquired the knowledge of dismissal of the suit only after the disposal of the Writ Petition appears to be very probable in the given circumstances. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a liberal approach for the word ‘sufficient cause’ has to be given in this case. Considering the circumstances leading to the filing of this application, that the Executive Officer has been appointed much later after the dismissal of the suit, who had no knowledge about the dismissal of the suit filed by the erstwhile Trustee. 9. Considering the circumstances leading to the filing of this application, that the Executive Officer has been appointed much later after the dismissal of the suit, who had no knowledge about the dismissal of the suit filed by the erstwhile Trustee. 9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the suit property consists of 2.10 acres belonging to the temple and they should be given a chance to establish their substantial right. Hence, this Court is of the view that in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit, the temple can very well recover the properties. Therefore, the right of the temple cannot be shut at the initial stage itself merely on the ground that there was a huge delay in coming to the Court. The delay is not deliberate and willful as could be seen from the circumstances pertaining to this case. Therefore, this Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, is inclined to condone the delay, though appears to be huge, to advance substantial justice. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously within 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the trial Court shall also permit the plaintiff to file necessary application to bring on record the Executive Officer to represent the plaintiff. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost.