The petitioners having suffered the decree in the Court below preferred an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed as against them. Inasmuch as there is a delay of 932 days in filing the said petition, they have come forward with the application to condone the delay in I.A.No.946 of 2006.
2.The reason given by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay is that according to them, they have filed the application in time and thereafter, they were unable to prosecute the application filed by them as the records got misplaced and not traceable and inasmuch as their counsel did not blame the Court staff, hence the delay has occurred.
3.The reasons furnished by the petitioner for the condonation of delay has been resisted by the respondent contending that the matter has been unnecessarily dragged on by the petitioner with a view to prevent the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree.
4.The Lower Court on an appreciation of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties found that no reason whatsoever has been given by the petitioners to condone the delay. Further it is also found by the Court below that in support of the case no materials also placed by the petitioners to show that they had filed the petition in time. Even for the sake of the arguments, the petition is filed in time, it does not stand to reason as to why the petitioners have not evinced interest thereafter to prosecute the application further and get remedy for more than three years. It only shows the attitude of the petitioners in not conducting the case diligently. It is further found that only after the preliminary decree the petitioners have come forward with the application to condone the delay etc. From the arguments put forth by the petitioners, it is found that the petitioners have already been set ex-parte and this is the second ex-parte decree passed against them. This only exposes the conduct of the petitioners that they are not interested in defending their cause and filed the application to condone the delay to drag on the proceedings. This conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated and encouraged.
5.It is found that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. Hence the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
.