The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 01.09.2009, passed in I.A.No.31 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
2. The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.106 of 2005. The said suit has been laid by the first respondent for the reliefs declaration and permanent injunction. It is found that the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent, who is the first defendant, had suffered an ex parte decree in the abovesaid suit and seeking to set aside the same, the revision petitioner had preferred an application. However, inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 332 days in preferring the said application, to condone the abovesaid delay, the revision petitioner has come forward with I.A.No.31 of 2008. Now, according to the revision petitioner, it is only the second respondent herein, who had been conducting the case on his behalf also by filing the written statement, and he has purchased the property from the second respondent herein, vide the registered sale deed, dated 31.03.2005 and according to him, the second respondent left the matter uncontested and not endeavoured to adduce evidence when the matter was posted for defendants' evidence and accordingly, the suit ended in an ex parte decree in favour of the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 first respondent and further, according to the revision petitioner, as he is an astrologer by profession, he was out of station on account of his occupation, particularly, North India on pilgrimage tour and only when he came to the village, later he was apprised of the ex parte decree by his counsel and thereafter, filed necessary application to obtain the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree and mean while, he was also attacked by jaundice and taking treatment through naturopathy system and only after getting recovered, he was able to give instructions to the counsel to prefer necessary application with reference to the same and hence, the delay had occurred.
3. The first respondent seriously contested the abovesaid cause projected by the revision petitioner for the delay and putforth the case that despite the indulgence of the Court granting sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner and the second respondent to adduce evidence in the suit, they having failed to adduce any evidence in support of their case and remaining absent, resultantly, the Court had set them ex parte and the suit ended in an ex parte decree in favour of the first respondent and disputed the case of the revision petitioner that he had been to North India on pilgrimage tour on account of his avocation and only when he came to the village, he was apprised of the ex parte decree and subsequently, had suffered jaundice and thereby, the delay had occurred and contended that after the suit had ended http://www.judis.nic.in 4 in a decree in his favour, he had taken steps to change the Patta in his favour before the Revenue Authorities and in the proceedings conducted by the Revenue Authorities in connection with the same, the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent had appeared and participated in the abovesaid proceedings and therefore, putforth the case that the revision petitioner is well aware of the suit proceedings and the decree passed against him and only with a view to delay the proceedings and cause undue hardship to the first respondent, he has preferred the application and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
4. The revision petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in the suit levied by the first respondent. Seeking to set aside the same, he has come forward with the application. Inasmuch as there occurred a delay of 332 days in preferring the application, seeking to condone the same, he has preferred necessary application. The reasons given by the revision petitioner for the delay are that on account of his avocation, he had been to North India on pilgrimage tour and only on returning to the village, he came to know about the ex parte decree passed against him and thereafter, taken steps to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and Decree and in the mean while as he had been affected by jaundice and taking treatment, he was unable to present the application in time and thereby, the delay had occurred. The same had http://www.judis.nic.in 5 been seriously repudiated by the first respondent / plaintiff. Despite the same, no acceptable and reliable material has been projected by the revision petitioner with reference to the abovesaid cause projected by him, other than his interested and ipse dixit testimony. If really the revision petitioner had been to North India on pilgrimage tour, materials pointing to the same would have been produced. Furthermore, if he had been affected by jaundice and taking treatment, proof concerning the same would have been adduced one way or the other and the person, who had given treatment to the revision petitioner would have been examined. Furthermore, it has not been clearly averred as to when the revision petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree from his Advocate and when further steps had been taken with reference to the same. On the other hand, when the materials projected in the matter point out that the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein had taken part in the revenue proceedings initiated by the first respondent as regards the change of Patta in respect of the suit property based upon the decree obtained by the first respondent in the suit and when the said fact has not been controverted by the revision petitioner, as such, it is found that the revision petitioner as well as the second respondent herein are fully aware of the ex parte decree passed against them in the suit and despite the same, they have not evinced interest to challenge the same in time as per law. The abovesaid conduct of the revision petitioner would only go to expose that he http://www.judis.nic.in 6 has come forward with the present application only to cause undue hardship and inconvenience to the first respondent one way or the other so as to ensure that he does not enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by him. It is thus noted that the cause projected by the revision petitioner for the huge and inordinate delay not coming within the parameters of the sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and accordingly, unable to substantiate the same with acceptable proof, in all, it is found that the Court below had rightly dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioner. In such view of the matter, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
5. In conclusion, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.