PONNUSWAMY Vs. RENGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.No.40 of 2007 in O.S.No.21 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) BY way of torpedoing and pulverising the argument as put forth on the side of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would set forth and put forth his arguments, the long and short of them would run thus: a. The affidavit was not filed by the Advocate's Clerk, who was allegedly responsible for mixing up the papers with other bundles but only the Advocate for the defendant filed such an affidavit. b. The court also executed the sale deed in pursuance of the decree passed in the suit and possession of the property was also obtained. Thereafter, the plaintiff spent huge amounts in developing the property and at this stage, if the court by setting aside the exparte decree, sets the clock back, then it will lead to lot of complications and discomfiture and for that matter, the defendant also does not deserve indulgence of this court in view of the defendant's mala fide intention in selling the suit property itself for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and odd and that too, after the filing of the application to get the delay in representation condoned. c. The lower court also adverted to all the bad intentions of the revision petitioner concerned and condemned his conduct in unmistakable terms, warranting no interference by this court in this revision. d. This is not a simple case of merely condoning the delay of 348 days in representing the papers but the conduct of the party has to be seen and accordingly, the defendant's conduct does not deserve any sympathy at the hands of this court. As such, he prays for the dismissal of the revision petition.