SELVARAJ Vs. R PAULRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.334 of 2010 in O.S.No.154 of 2006 dated 22.06.2010, an application to condone the delay in re-presenting the application to condone the delay caused in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree along with the said petition.

(2.) HEARD M/s.G.Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.M.Duraisamy, the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator.

(3.) I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. The fact remains that the lower Court did not consider the applications filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation of delay of 666 days caused in re-presentation of the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of 44 days delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to set aside the exparte decree. The petitioner has let in evidence on his side towards the proof of the allegations made in the affidavit. Ex.A1, Doctor certificate was produced for the illness of Jaundice from 01.10.2007 to 15.01.2008. However, the lower Court had found that it has nothing to do with the condonation of delay caused thereafter. The reason putforth by the petitioner would be that his application filed for the condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree along with the application to set aside the exparte decree were returned and they were mixed up with the some other papers of advocate's office and the advocate appeared for him took ill and was operated for gallbladder Cancer and therefore, the delay has been caused in re-presentation of those petitions. It is a settled principle that a litigant cannot be prejudiced by an act or omission of his counsel, when the litigant was not at default.