Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This Civil revision petition has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.153 of 2008 in O.S.No. -- Of 2008( Transferred O.S.No.117 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Sankari) on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode is challenged. The impugned order was passed by the learned trial Judge under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.153 of 2008 in O.S.No. --Of 2008(Transferred O.S.No.117 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari). The lis is between the father in law and the son in law. The son in law has filed a suit against the father in law for Specific Performance of the Contract under a registered sale agreement dated 10.3.1995. The affidavit to the application reads that only as security for the loan of Rs.60,000/- obtained from the father in law, the said agreement of sale was executed and that there was a mediation took place between the revision petitioner and the respondents . In the mean time, the revision petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents for a decree for Specific Performance of Contract under the sale of agreement dated 10.3.1995 and obtained an exparte decree. Taking into consideration, the averments in the affidavit to the application, the trial Court thought it fit to allow the application on payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. The learned counsel for the respondents would state that he has already deposited the cost imposed in I.A.No.153 of 2008.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on decisions reported in G.Jayaraman-v- Devarajan(2007(2)CTC 643) and Pundlik Jalam Patil by Lrs-v- Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project (2008 (5)CTC 663) and contended that there was no sufficient cause shown in the affidavit to the application filed by the respondents to condone the delay of 657 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 24.12.1998. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application on cost, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
4.In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed . The trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No. --2008( O.S.No.117 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari) after restoring the same,within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
sg